Slashdot Mirror

Also, the "emergency" argument doesn't work for the Internet. It has become clear that, during any major emergency, what's needed is a rapid influx of portable Internet (and other comms) capacity. During disasters, communication is extremely important for disaster workers. So again, it isn't going to be shut down during any "national disaster". The disaster-relief folks are working on exactly the opposite, rapid deployment of mobile comm equipment, mostly providing wireless Internet capability, to disaster areas.

"The ability to access emergency services by dialing 911 is a vital component of public safety and emergency preparedness." Because of this, the FCC already requires VOIP providers to meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations. Interrupting the routes between people's ISPs and the ISPs of their VOIP providers (how I understand a so called "kill switch" might work) would potentially disconnect people from access to E911 services. It does indeed sound like a conflict. Do we have a "kill switch" for the PSTN?

I am a Ham operator. The government may not force me to transmit on their behalf or shut me down if I don't comply. The only rule I can find regarding this is that I may not cause harmful interference. But this is for all forms of Ham radio communication and not just in emergencies. However, many Hams do participate in emergency communications through two organizations, ARES and RACES. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=amateur

Use a jammer, go to jail. Ironic isn't it. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular

OK so technically you could get a permit, but you have to wonder if prisons are relying on cellular for official communications at this point. It's become so cheap and prevalent - cellular is replacing radio for a lot of field operations comms requirements these days. (No I can't cite anything beyond what I see at my own job where some of the field crews are cellphone only at this point.) Anyway, if that is the case and prisons are using cellular for their own comms - jamming the prisoner comms becomes problematic and probably creates a safety issue for employees.

It takes a significant amount of infrastructure in order to do HF direction finding. I believe the FCC has one facility to do it. The US military probably has a few in different parts of the globe. Egypt might have a facility or two. But the accuracy of these things will only give you city-level precision. Tracking it down further requires driving around the city with a receiver and looking at the signal strength. Not quick.

The thing with ham stations is that you don't necessarily need a big antenna on a tower or anything. You could communicate with a wire antenna in a palm tree. You could go out into the desert and raise some 10m masts. Either way, these are low-infrastructure requirements and can easily be raised and town down in a matter of an hour. It should not be difficult to relocate after every communication session, even without running mobile (on a vehicle).

Running mobile is also an option, and can be done on HF without much difficulty. A "hamstick" type antenna for the 20m band (14 MHz) is able to reach hundreds of miles, even with today's low sunspot numbers.

-molo

Facebook, MySpace are blocked by law in all schools and public libraries that receive Federal Technology Dollars called E-Rate. The Children's Internet Protection Act was created as back door censorship by making it an additional require for poorer districts to receive needed funds to stay technologically relevant. Earlier attempts to censor the web at these locations were overturned by the Supreme Court on First Amendment Grounds.

It has created a cat and mouse game as kids find new proxies to circumvent black listing, including building their own Linux based Proxies at home, and MIS Depts charged with complying with the law. But, as smart phones continue to proliferate amongst the students, the law will be lose its impact.

The FCC is at least paying lip service to some of this via their own site http://www.fcc.gov/initiatives.html and the flashier, oh so cool, Broadband.gov site.

Until....buffering......buffering..... pesky.....buffering...buffering.... Comcast et al does their dirty deeds.

Huh. If only the someone would adopt rules that specifically preventing ISPs from block, degrading, or discriminating against content providers that compete with services offered by the ISPs, particularly calling out voice and video services.

Oh, wait, they did.

Personally I think both "sides" are bad.

...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!

In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?

...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.

Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:

...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...

But having just The Washington Post opinion really is just that. Let's go to the source...
Here are the statements: 1 2 3 4
The news release isn't much better as when reading down to each individual bullet point, I see many comments for "protecting online video", but video is not the only concern!

Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and
conditions that would be available to an MVPD.

Send chills down your back when you consider the implications of statements like that, doesn't it?
Quote from link 1 above:

The conditions include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives
innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.

A nice disclaimer at the front of link 3 above (joint approval):

However interesting and intricate the issues raised by the combination of Comcast and
NBCU may be, as a matter of law, our role at the Commission is limited to ensuring that the
transaction complies with all applicable statutory provisions, such as ensuring that the license
transfers are in the public interest. Our analysis should only include a thorough examination of
the potential benefits and harms of the transaction. Any proposed remedies should be narrow
and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer
approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger
specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.

That would be fine if the government actually gave the FCC power, but this is a whole other issue within itself.
From the dissenting opinion, to which I agree: (link 2)

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has
come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media
and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as
old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as
well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

Looking over these public notices on the FCC site I think it must be considered though on what we expected the FCC to do in the first place. If a particular judge thinks a law is stupid, it is not his job to ignore the law. (Constitutionality being a whole oth

Personally I think both "sides" are bad.

...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!

In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?

...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.

Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:

...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...

But having just The Washington Post opinion really is just that. Let's go to the source...
Here are the statements: 1 2 3 4
The news release isn't much better as when reading down to each individual bullet point, I see many comments for "protecting online video", but video is not the only concern!

Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and
conditions that would be available to an MVPD.

Send chills down your back when you consider the implications of statements like that, doesn't it?
Quote from link 1 above:

The conditions include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives
innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.

A nice disclaimer at the front of link 3 above (joint approval):

However interesting and intricate the issues raised by the combination of Comcast and
NBCU may be, as a matter of law, our role at the Commission is limited to ensuring that the
transaction complies with all applicable statutory provisions, such as ensuring that the license
transfers are in the public interest. Our analysis should only include a thorough examination of
the potential benefits and harms of the transaction. Any proposed remedies should be narrow
and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer
approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger
specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.

That would be fine if the government actually gave the FCC power, but this is a whole other issue within itself.
From the dissenting opinion, to which I agree: (link 2)

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has
come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media
and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as
old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as
well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

Looking over these public notices on the FCC site I think it must be considered though on what we expected the FCC to do in the first place. If a particular judge thinks a law is stupid, it is not his job to ignore the law. (Constitutionality being a whole oth

Personally I think both "sides" are bad.

...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!

In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?

...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.

Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:

...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...

But having just The Washington Post opinion really is just that. Let's go to the source...
Here are the statements: 1 2 3 4
The news release isn't much better as when reading down to each individual bullet point, I see many comments for "protecting online video", but video is not the only concern!

Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and
conditions that would be available to an MVPD.

Send chills down your back when you consider the implications of statements like that, doesn't it?
Quote from link 1 above:

The conditions include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives
innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.

A nice disclaimer at the front of link 3 above (joint approval):

However interesting and intricate the issues raised by the combination of Comcast and
NBCU may be, as a matter of law, our role at the Commission is limited to ensuring that the
transaction complies with all applicable statutory provisions, such as ensuring that the license
transfers are in the public interest. Our analysis should only include a thorough examination of
the potential benefits and harms of the transaction. Any proposed remedies should be narrow
and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer
approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger
specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.

That would be fine if the government actually gave the FCC power, but this is a whole other issue within itself.
From the dissenting opinion, to which I agree: (link 2)

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has
come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media
and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as
old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as
well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

Looking over these public notices on the FCC site I think it must be considered though on what we expected the FCC to do in the first place. If a particular judge thinks a law is stupid, it is not his job to ignore the law. (Constitutionality being a whole oth

Personally I think both "sides" are bad.

...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!

In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?

...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.

Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:

...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...

But having just The Washington Post opinion really is just that. Let's go to the source...
Here are the statements: 1 2 3 4
The news release isn't much better as when reading down to each individual bullet point, I see many comments for "protecting online video", but video is not the only concern!

Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and
conditions that would be available to an MVPD.

Send chills down your back when you consider the implications of statements like that, doesn't it?
Quote from link 1 above:

The conditions include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives
innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.

A nice disclaimer at the front of link 3 above (joint approval):

However interesting and intricate the issues raised by the combination of Comcast and
NBCU may be, as a matter of law, our role at the Commission is limited to ensuring that the
transaction complies with all applicable statutory provisions, such as ensuring that the license
transfers are in the public interest. Our analysis should only include a thorough examination of
the potential benefits and harms of the transaction. Any proposed remedies should be narrow
and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer
approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger
specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.

That would be fine if the government actually gave the FCC power, but this is a whole other issue within itself.
From the dissenting opinion, to which I agree: (link 2)

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has
come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media
and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as
old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as
well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

Looking over these public notices on the FCC site I think it must be considered though on what we expected the FCC to do in the first place. If a particular judge thinks a law is stupid, it is not his job to ignore the law. (Constitutionality being a whole oth

Personally I think both "sides" are bad.

...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!

In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?

...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.

Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:

...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...

But having just The Washington Post opinion really is just that. Let's go to the source...
Here are the statements: 1 2 3 4
The news release isn't much better as when reading down to each individual bullet point, I see many comments for "protecting online video", but video is not the only concern!

Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and
conditions that would be available to an MVPD.

Send chills down your back when you consider the implications of statements like that, doesn't it?
Quote from link 1 above:

The conditions include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives
innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.

A nice disclaimer at the front of link 3 above (joint approval):

However interesting and intricate the issues raised by the combination of Comcast and
NBCU may be, as a matter of law, our role at the Commission is limited to ensuring that the
transaction complies with all applicable statutory provisions, such as ensuring that the license
transfers are in the public interest. Our analysis should only include a thorough examination of
the potential benefits and harms of the transaction. Any proposed remedies should be narrow
and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer
approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger
specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.

That would be fine if the government actually gave the FCC power, but this is a whole other issue within itself.
From the dissenting opinion, to which I agree: (link 2)

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has
come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media
and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as
old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as
well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

Looking over these public notices on the FCC site I think it must be considered though on what we expected the FCC to do in the first place. If a particular judge thinks a law is stupid, it is not his job to ignore the law. (Constitutionality being a whole oth

Personally I think both "sides" are bad.

...but at least the leader of their party was opposed to this!

In my opinion, if someone is against it...well saying something and doing something are two different things. I think it is apathy that is to blame. Too many (non tech-"savy") people just say they really do not care that much. Apathy, hell we know those lobbyists are very motivated people. The other problem is ignorance, I mean the internet is a series of tubes right?

...kicking apart hopes for protection against 'pipes and their water' frameworks.

Oh right, pipes. Also from the article:

...the Federal Communications Commission determined the deal was in the nation's public interest...

But having just The Washington Post opinion really is just that. Let's go to the source...
Here are the statements: 1 2 3 4
The news release isn't much better as when reading down to each individual bullet point, I see many comments for "protecting online video", but video is not the only concern!

Offers its video programming to legitimate OVDs on the same terms and
conditions that would be available to an MVPD.

Send chills down your back when you consider the implications of statements like that, doesn't it?
Quote from link 1 above:

The conditions include carefully considered steps to ensure that competition drives
innovation in the emerging online video marketplace.

A nice disclaimer at the front of link 3 above (joint approval):

However interesting and intricate the issues raised by the combination of Comcast and
NBCU may be, as a matter of law, our role at the Commission is limited to ensuring that the
transaction complies with all applicable statutory provisions, such as ensuring that the license
transfers are in the public interest. Our analysis should only include a thorough examination of
the potential benefits and harms of the transaction. Any proposed remedies should be narrow
and transaction specific, tailored to address particular anti-competitive harms. License transfer
approvals should not serve as vehicles to extract from petitioners far-reaching and non-merger
specific policy concessions that are best left to broader rulemaking or legislative processes.

That would be fine if the government actually gave the FCC power, but this is a whole other issue within itself.
From the dissenting opinion, to which I agree: (link 2)

Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal is a transaction like no other that has
come before this Commission—ever. It reaches into virtually every corner of our media
and digital landscapes and will affect every citizen in the land. It is new media as well as
old; it is news and information as well as sports and entertainment; it is distribution as
well as content. And it confers too much power in one company’s hands.

Looking over these public notices on the FCC site I think it must be considered though on what we expected the FCC to do in the first place. If a particular judge thinks a law is stupid, it is not his job to ignore the law. (Constitutionality being a whole oth

The listed F.C.C. files for BCG-E2328A show as being from March and April 2010. The final user manual there lists both models each with a FCC ID number. The rear cover apparently lists both also (with and without cell radio)

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=751625&fcc_id='BCG-E2328A'

All docs are listed as .pdfs but download with the wrong filenames and .html extensions. They open fine after changing that to .pdf. There are quite a few pics in those FCC submissions but things like chip numbers are hidden.

Lots of people pointed out that the whole "Net Neutrality" thing was just an excuse to get the camel's nose into the tent and that once a precendet for the FCC being able to regulate the internet was in place, all sorts of things would be following.

Enjoy your trusted identities, mandatory DRM, broadcast-style content restrictions, etc.

At least I'll get to enjoy all the wailing from the Free Software types when the law mandating only authorized commercial (e.g. closed) operating systems be allowed to connect to the internet, to make sure you're not subeverting all their requirements.

Lots of people pointed out that the whole "Net Neutrality" thing was just an excuse to get the camel's nose into the tent and that once a precendet for the FCC being able to regulate the internet was in place, all sorts of things would be following.

Enjoy your trusted identities, mandatory DRM, broadcast-style content restrictions, etc.

At least I'll get to enjoy all the wailing from the Free Software types when the law mandating only authorized commercial (e.g. closed) operating systems be allowed to connect to the internet, to make sure you're not subeverting all their requirements.

If my cell phone mysteriously stopped working in a lecture hall I would happily report them to the FCC. Read up here http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf If my university had some random gun tottin nut go around and start shooting people, it will be a cold day in hell for the administration to admit that students were unable to call 911 because some low level professor wanted his kids not to cheat. You can deter 90% of all cheating by simply threatening an F if caught, for the others let them get their faked grades. They'll do well working in some random corporation or the government.

Since most of the discussion I've seen here is somewhat devoid of facts, I've just taken a few moments to review the first section of the document that details the recent vote of the FCC on Net Neutrality rules.

I encourage anyone to read through at least this first section from the following link:
FCC Report and Order on Net Neutrality

It is troubling from the outset.

Section I.1: "Today the Commission takes an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression."

Anyone notice where free expression falls in that list? This should give any American, left or right, something to worry about.

What follows is taken from the "three basic rules" which are said to govern the FCC's philosophy on net neutrality:

Section I.1.iii: "No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic."

The previous two rules of Section I.1 apply in part to both "Fixed" and "mobile" providers. Mobile providers are clearly, glaringly absent from the third rule. The unspoken message is this: "Mobile broadband providers may unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic." Is this an unfair understanding that one might take from Section I.1.iii?

It does not take any party affiliation to feel worry about the implications of even the first few words present in this document.

Oh Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. It's RIGHT HERE on the front page of FCC.gov. If it was a rattlesnake you'd already be dead:

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc

Oh Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick. It's RIGHT HERE on the front page of FCC.gov. If it was a rattlesnake you'd already be dead:

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc

The closest thing I can find to the actual regulation is this document:

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1221/DOC-303745A1.pdf

Which does not list the whole regulation passed, just excerpts. And parts of them look very bad indeed:

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is
so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to
reasonable network management.

Bye-Bye torrents; the government has now codified it's perfectly reasonable to block traffic considered "unlawful".

All that remains is for the MPAA to put forth the pipeline to feed ISP's the torrents the ISP's must block.

Remember the word "lawful" did not have to be in there at all, it's used in a few places - and it's not an accidental term.

Took me less than a minute..... http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf

Like always, there's a zillion stories floating around, and hardly any of them actually provide a reader with a link to the actual order. The anti-neutrality arguments take two main themes: That the FCC has no legal right to publish such orders, and that terrible harm will come to the internet if the existing de facto policy of neutrality is codified into law.

The first is a legal issue, and I have no idea whether the FCC has the authority to do this.

Based on the language in the order I've read, every argument I've seen so far in the second category is just full of crap. Any real argument against these specific rules should actually quote a rule, and describe in detail how it's wrong.

However, the FCC still enforces the same principle under the "Diversity" moniker, with the same methodology (programming must contain content X, Y and Z in the proportions the FCC requires or your broadcast license is revoked).

Really? Evidence (not speculation or unsupported allegations) of this is to be found, where exactly?

There are a few things that grandparent might be referring to. One is the E/I requirement: three hours per subchannel per week of regularly scheduled educational programming intended for children. Television programming for children 12 and under must be carefully edited so as not to look remotely like an infomercial; the series Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh! in particular have been responsible for fines against broadcast stations. Another is "Reasonable Access" and "Equal Opportunity" for candidates to buy ad time. Read more here.

Yes, the Doctrine was repealed in 1987. However, the FCC still enforces the same principle under the "Diversity" moniker, with the same methodology (programming must contain content X, Y and Z in the proportions the FCC requires or your broadcast license is revoked).

Really? Evidence (not speculation or unsupported allegations) of this is to be found, where exactly?

The Fairness Doctrine is alive and well, under the auspices of their Chief Diversity Officer (yes, that's the title of the position and it has real authority), Mark Lloyd.

AFAICT Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd's resposibilities with regard to "diversity" have to do with ensuring "that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities" (as per the FCC page about him) -- that is diversity of ownership, equality of access among groups, and diversity of viewpoints across the whole market -- not that individual broadcasters represent a specified ratio of particular viewpoints as was the case under the Fairness Doctrine. This seems consistent with the general use of "Diversity" as a goal within the FCC, such as the orientation of the Diversity Federal Advisory Committee.

The only references I can find on to "Diversity" or the "Chief Diversity Officer" at the FCC having anything to do with anything even remotely related to the single-broadcaster requirements imposed under the Fairness Doctrine are political advocacy sites making claims of that nature with no concrete support.

Yes, the Doctrine was repealed in 1987. However, the FCC still enforces the same principle under the "Diversity" moniker, with the same methodology (programming must contain content X, Y and Z in the proportions the FCC requires or your broadcast license is revoked).

Really? Evidence (not speculation or unsupported allegations) of this is to be found, where exactly?

The Fairness Doctrine is alive and well, under the auspices of their Chief Diversity Officer (yes, that's the title of the position and it has real authority), Mark Lloyd.

AFAICT Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd's resposibilities with regard to "diversity" have to do with ensuring "that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities" (as per the FCC page about him) -- that is diversity of ownership, equality of access among groups, and diversity of viewpoints across the whole market -- not that individual broadcasters represent a specified ratio of particular viewpoints as was the case under the Fairness Doctrine. This seems consistent with the general use of "Diversity" as a goal within the FCC, such as the orientation of the Diversity Federal Advisory Committee.

The only references I can find on to "Diversity" or the "Chief Diversity Officer" at the FCC having anything to do with anything even remotely related to the single-broadcaster requirements imposed under the Fairness Doctrine are political advocacy sites making claims of that nature with no concrete support.

The FCC originally didnt censor broadcasting, either.

The FCC has limited free speech my entire life.

ITS WHAT THEY DO.
THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.
IT LEADS TO THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN MANDATORY HARDWARE ON ALL DEVICES

I'll take a throttled torrent over censorship EVERY FUCKING DAY OF THE FUCKING WEEK.

WAKE THE FUCK UP. THE FCC IS FUCKING BAD FOR THE INTERNET.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Franklin

The FCC originally didnt censor broadcasting, either.

The FCC has limited free speech my entire life.

ITS WHAT THEY DO.
THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.
IT LEADS TO THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN MANDATORY HARDWARE ON ALL DEVICES

I'll take a throttled torrent over censorship EVERY FUCKING DAY OF THE FUCKING WEEK.

WAKE THE FUCK UP. THE FCC IS FUCKING BAD FOR THE INTERNET.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Franklin

The FCC originally didnt censor broadcasting, either.

The FCC has limited free speech my entire life.

ITS WHAT THEY DO.
THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.
IT LEADS TO THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN MANDATORY HARDWARE ON ALL DEVICES

I'll take a throttled torrent over censorship EVERY FUCKING DAY OF THE FUCKING WEEK.

WAKE THE FUCK UP. THE FCC IS FUCKING BAD FOR THE INTERNET.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Franklin

Oh but you are missing the sneakier way they are gonna get you...caps. I'm in one of the test markets for the new caps, which BTW are 36GB for residential, and 76GB for business. Now that is $106! for the bundle with basic cable and phone, or $180! for the "business" which is the same just with a higher cap. Now here is how they get you:

Vonage? Counts against the cap. Their VoIP? Don't. Linux and Mac updates? Count. Windows? Don't because they got "donated" a WSUS server. Anyone other than Netflix and Youtube? Counts. Their PPV along with Youtube and Netflix? Don't, and the only reason you are allowed Youtube and Netflix is they paid to put a local server. Starting to see a trend?

Yup. I'm seeing a probable violation of today's order. We don't have the full text available, but we do have the news release with excerpts, and it certainly looks like unreasonable discrimination by way of paid prioritization. From the excerpts of the order provided with the official news release PDF (may have availability problems due to high demand), DOC (seems to be available):

Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

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.
.
.
.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule

A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users. Fees imposed on edge providers may be excessive because few edge providers have the ability to bargain for lesser fees, and because no broadband provider internalizes the full costs of reduced innovation and the exit of edge providers from the market. Third, pay-for-priority arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion. Even open Internet skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform. Fourth, broadband providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic. In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard. The practice of a broadband

Oh but you are missing the sneakier way they are gonna get you...caps. I'm in one of the test markets for the new caps, which BTW are 36GB for residential, and 76GB for business. Now that is $106! for the bundle with basic cable and phone, or $180! for the "business" which is the same just with a higher cap. Now here is how they get you:

Vonage? Counts against the cap. Their VoIP? Don't. Linux and Mac updates? Count. Windows? Don't because they got "donated" a WSUS server. Anyone other than Netflix and Youtube? Counts. Their PPV along with Youtube and Netflix? Don't, and the only reason you are allowed Youtube and Netflix is they paid to put a local server. Starting to see a trend?

Yup. I'm seeing a probable violation of today's order. We don't have the full text available, but we do have the news release with excerpts, and it certainly looks like unreasonable discrimination by way of paid prioritization. From the excerpts of the order provided with the official news release PDF (may have availability problems due to high demand), DOC (seems to be available):

Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

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.
.
.
.
Pay for Priority Unlikely to Satisfy “No Unreasonable Discrimination” Rule

A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the connection to a subscriber of the broadband provider (i.e., “pay for priority”) would raise significant cause for concern. First, pay for priority would represent a significant departure from historical and current practice. Since the beginning of the Internet, Internet access providers have typically not charged particular content or application providers fees to reach the providers’ consumer retail service subscribers or struck pay-for-priority deals, and the record does not contain evidence that U.S. broadband providers currently engage in such arrangements. Second this departure from longstanding norms could cause great harm to innovation and investment in and on the Internet. As discussed above, pay-for-priority arrangements could raise barriers to entry on the Internet by requiring fees from edge providers, as well as transaction costs arising from the need to reach agreements with one or more broadband providers to access a critical mass of potential users. Fees imposed on edge providers may be excessive because few edge providers have the ability to bargain for lesser fees, and because no broadband provider internalizes the full costs of reduced innovation and the exit of edge providers from the market. Third, pay-for-priority arrangements may particularly harm non-commercial end users, including individual bloggers, libraries, schools, advocacy organizations, and other speakers, especially those who communicate through video or other content sensitive to network congestion. Even open Internet skeptics acknowledge that pay for priority may disadvantage non-commercial uses of the network, which are typically less able to pay for priority, and for which the Internet is a uniquely important platform. Fourth, broadband providers that sought to offer pay-for-priority services would have an incentive to limit the quality of service provided to non-prioritized traffic. In light of each of these concerns, as a general matter, it is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard. The practice of a broadband

Has anyone bemoaning the new rules actually read them? No, of course not. They read an opinion, with which they already agreed, and then started whining. Typical of the American public, really.

Here, read the summary and then whine.
    http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303745A1.doc (PDF wasn't available.)

More definitions are included in the document above, as well as additional discussion.

Following are key excerpts from the Report and Order adopted by the Commission to preserve the open Internet:
Rule 1: Transparency

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service shall publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.

Rule 2: No Blocking

A person engaged in the provision of fixed broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block consumers from accessing lawful websites, subject to reasonable network management; nor shall such person block applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network

Rule 3: No Unreasonable Discrimination

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.

Select Definitions

Broadband Internet access service: A mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence, or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part.

Reasonable network management. A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with a user’s choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and by reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network.

Indeed. I tried to tell all these young slashdotters that the FCC is *not* for freedom of speech, but none of them wanted to listen.

I told them how the FCC was considered very very very bad by my generation for good reasons, but they didn't want to listen. They were all dreamy-eyed about the wonders of "net neutrality" and refused to fucking listen, and were actually IN A FUCKING RUSH TO SUPPORT THE FCC.

Listen up fucking kids on slashdot. The FCC should never ever ever be allowed to regulate the internet. Ever. Period. Never fucking ever.

This will be the future of forums.
This will be the future of running a web site.

You fuckers wanted to END FREE SPEECH just so your fucking torrent wont get throttled... FUCK YOU.

Indeed. I tried to tell all these young slashdotters that the FCC is *not* for freedom of speech, but none of them wanted to listen.

I told them how the FCC was considered very very very bad by my generation for good reasons, but they didn't want to listen. They were all dreamy-eyed about the wonders of "net neutrality" and refused to fucking listen, and were actually IN A FUCKING RUSH TO SUPPORT THE FCC.

Listen up fucking kids on slashdot. The FCC should never ever ever be allowed to regulate the internet. Ever. Period. Never fucking ever.

This will be the future of forums.
This will be the future of running a web site.

You fuckers wanted to END FREE SPEECH just so your fucking torrent wont get throttled... FUCK YOU.

Like this? The original proposed rulemaking document is on the right-hand side towards the bottom. AKA 09-93 (From October 2009)

Your assumption is wrong: http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/biography.html

Locked out since June? This seems newsworthy to me, where is the lame stream media on this story?

My B.S. detector is going off.

Am I the only one taking note of "Federal News Radio" as being pretty much unheard of? The name sounds like a network, yet it is apparently a single station, WFED a directional AM station in Washington D.C.
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/ It's strange that the website shows 1500 AM, but doesn't even mention the call letters. I'm surprised to see so many stories listed on the website, and puzzled that the large buttons near the top of the page don't link anywhere.

The story may be legitimate, but I'm very suspicious of news sources that seem to pop up out of nowhere with weighty-sounding names. There certainly are interest groups that cook up such things for one agenda or another.

FCC technical details for 1500 AM
http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?list=0&facid=74120

It looks like the source is just another news-talk AM station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFED

If you're wondering the FCC is thinking, read this:

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1209/DOC-303457A1.pdf

Let me summarize:
* They only see this as a checkbox on the Obama administration's to-do list. ("Work on net neutrality." DONE.)
* They don't see any problem with the status quo other than some "isolated incidents"
* They feel they are overstepping their regulatory bounds and this should be an action undertaken by the courts or Congress.

In other words - kiss your open access goodbye.

Its not like the FCC has a track record of censoring free speech, nor has it ever mandate that specific censor-based hardware be included with all content devices.

No, the FCC is totally for free speech and an unregulated internet, without question. We should trust them completely because they have NEVER done what the critics are afraid of.

Its not like the FCC has a track record of censoring free speech, nor has it ever mandate that specific censor-based hardware be included with all content devices.

No, the FCC is totally for free speech and an unregulated internet, without question. We should trust them completely because they have NEVER done what the critics are afraid of.

Its not like the FCC has a track record of censoring free speech, nor has it ever mandate that specific censor-based hardware be included with all content devices.

No, the FCC is totally for free speech and an unregulated internet, without question. We should trust them completely because they have NEVER done what the critics are afraid of.

Its a good thing that Slashdot supports putting the FCC in charge of regulating the Internet in America, because they have never censored any sort of content with any sort of filter in the past.

Rest assured that the FCC would never break its long standing and strong track record of never censoring any content.

Its a good thing that Slashdot supports putting the FCC in charge of regulating the Internet in America, because they have never censored any sort of content with any sort of filter in the past.

Rest assured that the FCC would never break its long standing and strong track record of never censoring any content.

I'm not talking about building a faraday cage into your store's construction (obviously that's possible, but seems prohibitively expensive). I'm talking about actual cell-phone jamming, which I believe is illegal, according to the FCC.

But, according to the various telecommunications acts passed over the years, if they become aware of criminal activities (such as child pornography trafficking) while they're inspecting your email, they're supposed to report it to "the authorities". And they (just like any ISP) are allowed to inspect *any* emails passing through their systems for purposes of performance monitoring and whatnot.

This'd be a good place to start reading:
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

There is no question of the association allowing a satellite dish.

If you live in the US, you're covered by Federal Law. Now you just need to find an acceptable signal. I'm in Richmond, VA and have the 'east coast' Dish Network dish that works right in the middle of my tree-heavy property. It uses sats at 61.5, 72, and 77 degrees west.

Right. Now we just have to actually reach "no monopolies" and "no restrictions on competition", because the cost of building an initial set of cell towers is most certainly restricting new players from entering the market.

Making transceivers doesn't cost much actually, the costly part is locating towers. However with higher powered transceivers fewer towers are needed. Regulations though set maximum power levels. Another way to reduce the number of towers and transceivers needed is using shortwave broadcasting. I used to get a kick out of listening to Radio Moscow on shortwave, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I lived in Florida then. When disasters happen knocking out land-line communications, shortwave radios are used. Still today Radio Shack sells shortwave receivers, of course I'd rather go to Skycraft to buy the parts then build one myself.

Another way cellphone service is and was restricted is by the use of System Identification Numbers, or SIDs. Licensing is required.

Falcon

Right. Now we just have to actually reach "no monopolies" and "no restrictions on competition", because the cost of building an initial set of cell towers is most certainly restricting new players from entering the market.

Making transceivers doesn't cost much actually, the costly part is locating towers. However with higher powered transceivers fewer towers are needed. Regulations though set maximum power levels. Another way to reduce the number of towers and transceivers needed is using shortwave broadcasting. I used to get a kick out of listening to Radio Moscow on shortwave, before the collapse of the Soviet Union. And I lived in Florida then. When disasters happen knocking out land-line communications, shortwave radios are used. Still today Radio Shack sells shortwave receivers, of course I'd rather go to Skycraft to buy the parts then build one myself.

Another way cellphone service is and was restricted is by the use of System Identification Numbers, or SIDs. Licensing is required.

Falcon

from google.com/phone: nexus-s
Quad-band GSM: 850, 900, 1800, 1900
Tri-band HSPA: 900, 2100, 1700 HSPA type: HSDPA (7.2Mbps) HSUPA (5.76Mbps)

fcc filings seem to confirm (umts iv is 1700/2100) everything but the hspa-900

so the 850 is for gsm, not 3g
believe at&t 3g is 850 and 1900, so it looks like no 3g with the nexus s on at&t
the t-mobile version of the vibrant (on which the nexus s appears to be based) is umts 1700/2100 + 1900, and it's reported to get at&t 3g on the 1900
think umts 900 is for europe, but not sure how widely it's deployed atm

You've been seriously misinformed about what "net neutrality" actually means.

This is what the FCC thinks it is:

The key point being:

"Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access
service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory
manner."

Where:

"We understand the term "nondiscriminatory" to mean that a broadband Internet access service provider may not charge a content, application, or service provider for enhanced or prioritized access to the subscribers of the broadband Internet access service provider...We propose that this rule would not prevent a broadband Internet access service provider from charging subscribers different prices for different services."

Which still leaves a lot of holes - can an Internet access provider have both free peering and then ask CDN's for money?

The key there is "would not prevent a broadband Internet access service provider from charging subscribers different prices for different services."

Subscribers. Charge your own customers for the services they want. If you charge your own customers an extra $50 a month to deliver Netflix data to them, they can decide if they think that's fair. Vote with their feet, assuming the ISP doesn't have a broadband monopoly in the area. Which does happen.
No fair setting up toll gates for some content or websites that you don't like. That's what Comcast was doing.