Slashdot Mirror

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?

What does the FCC have to do with this, again? Last I checked, internet was not transferred directly over the air like traditional television, so they have no more jurisdiction over internet than cable TV.

As you are perhaps unaware, the FCC's jurisdiction is not limited to broadcast transmissions; it also has jurisdiction cable, among other things.

"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable." (About the FCC)

The parent post is most certainly not Flamebait. This does happen and has been documented many times.

FCC analysis shows that average (mean) actual speed consumers received was approximately 4 Mbps, while the median actual speed was roughly 3 Mbps in 2009. Therefore actual download speeds experienced by U.S. consumers lag advertised speeds by roughly 50%.

Source (Warning: PDF): http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0813/DOC-300902A1.pdf

That hasn't been true for fourteen years. The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 made exclusive licenses illegal.

What we have now is basically collusion between the major ISPs. The phone companies have all agreed that only one phone company will ever serve any particular area, and the cable companies have all agreed that only one cable company will ever serve any particular area, meaning that, for the majority of the area of the US, broadband customers have at most two choices.

For example, I have a choice of AT&T DSL or Time Warner cable, period. My parents live a five minute drive away and they have a choice of Verizon or Comcast, period. Verizon doesn't serve my area, despite the fact that they have hundreds of FIOS installations less than a mile from my house, and Time Warner doesn't serve my parents, despite the fact that they have a regional office less than a mile from their house.

This has nothing to do with government conspiring with business, and everything to do with too few players falling into a Nash Equilibrium: a state where nobody competes with anyone else, and instead work to squeeze as much money out of customers as possible.

First: Is there any sort of method in-place wherein a message can be repeatedly broadcast, but only alert subscribers on the first successfully received message?

Yes, that's part of the CBS specification and and the emergency system uses this as well. The messages are broadcast for a set amount of time at a set repetition rate. They also contain serial numbers so that the handsets can distinguish between old and new messages. There is also a provision for sending updates to messages which have already been transmitted.

With what geographic granularity will the broadcasts be sent (or perhaps more properly, received)?

I'm not sure how granular it will be in practice, but it could technically get down to the individual cell level. Most likely, the carriers know which cells approximately serve which zip codes and would group based on that. The specs don't say exactly how this should be done, except that the "Cell Broadcast Center" should determine the affected cell sites for the geolocation (geo-code, polygon, circle) of the emergency message.

Third: Is there any pertinent documentation available that I can ogle?

There really isn't much documentation which is publicly available. Here are a few things, although they're short on real details:
Announcements: FEMA FCC CTIA
Standards (paywalled): ATIS 0700006 Joint ATIS/TIA J-STD-100

Sorry I don't have links to the actual specifications content. For some reason, you have to be a member company or pay for them.

I should have referred to the system by its proper name -- in the U.S., it's called the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). There are similar systems being set up in other countries which closely follow the U.S. specifications, and those systems should be compatible with CMAS (at least that's the plan).

Here is an excerpt from the FCC website:

In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html

BTW: for those bored and feel like reading... here are the basic rules and such for unlicensed transmitters.

If you want to worry then you can worry about a non-service provider controlled cell tower spewing out broadcast text messages. Think what a Sanford Wallace could do with that. There was a slashdot article a while ago about a home brewed GSM cell tower. If it can handle calls it probably could send these broadcast texts messages too. The FCC CMAS website is here: http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/cmas.html

What about the old AMPS cell phones? They weren't encrypted, they blasted signals. They are just up in a band that starting in 1994 the rules/laws made so that consumers could no longer get a scanner in the US that could listen to them. (FCC ET Docket 93-1. Only references I can find to it are a complaint that scanner manufacturer filed in 1993-1994. Here (last page of file) is something that talks more about it as well (PDF file, seems to be related to what congress actually passed in Oct. 1992))
(IANAL and all that, you look and see what it says. Just ramblings of a random person here)

And don't forget that the law still appears to stand, even though there are very few (any?) providers offering AMPS service in the US today. (Feb 2008, Requirement to handle AMPS service dropped) I haven't even had a cell phone since 2005 that supported AMPS(2005 Phone: GSM, Cingular), and the phone before that one was a TDMA/AMPS phone on AT&T Wireless. (Only had 1 stretch of road for a few miles in the middle of nowhere where it would end up on AMPS mode(2002ish). That got fixed around 2002-3 IIRC.)

Expectations of privacy? People have them, even when they don't exist.

No. Today we already have the Net and we have Cable TV. The point of this comment to the FCC is that the Net is not Cable TV. Much of the discussion at the FCC and in the newspapers uses the term "broadband", by which is meant a conflation of the Net and Cable TV and perhaps other special services, such as telephone service. The point of the comment is to distinguish the Net from Cable TV.

For another version of the same argument see my 2007 comment to the FCC at http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2007/06/15/5514681010.html

If you are against distinguishing the Net from Cable TV, then you are for the Englobulators grabbing our Net. After all the Englobulators already have Cable TV, and since you say the Net is really the same, well what's to argue about? To run your own website you would have to make a special deal with the Cable Company. To get email from your bank, well, you have to pay for Special Bank Email Service, to play a game with friends far away, you'd have to pay for Special Game Service, and if you invent a new application that runs over what was once the Net, perhaps the Cable Company will let you run it, after they get cut in, etc..

The point of this recent comment and of my 2007 comment is this:

The Internet is not some bundle of services delivered by the Telephone Company and/or the Cable Company.

If we are not clear on this we cannot defend our Net.

ad length of my comment: It is really only about 12 pages long; the rest is a list of IANA port numbers.

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but to be protected as a common carrier, don't you have to have the government classify you as one? I don't think you get to just wake up one day and say "hey, I'm a common carrier, you can't touch me! na na na na na!" once the court/feds/whoever decide they don't like what you're doing

This suggests that there are requirements for being considered a telecom common carrier including reports that have to be filed yearly, etc. - http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/filing.html

I know a lot of websites put up statements about not filtering user comments, not being liable for user comments, etc. But has that ever actually been tested in court? The closest I am aware of (and I have not researched this) would be The Pirate Bay and well, that argument hasn't exactly worked well for them. Although they were not prosecuted in the US, I suspect it would have worked no better here in the US or they'd put their servers here.

your options are to contact the FCC and state to see the laws you have in your area concerning the right to receive TV.

Your Local Historic district gestapo cant do crap to keep you from putting up a satellite TV dish.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

verify your rights and then have one installed and tell the historic commission to stuff it in their rectum.

The rules may be illegal.

FCC Rules on Antenna/Dish placement

Microwave oven: 500-1000W (low-power oven; article mentions up to 2000W http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven)
(also note that it is concentrated within its shielding, i.e. the microwave, so the power density is quite huge in there)

Wifi: up to 1W ("normal" is 0.03W: http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics10.html)

So by comparing a wifi transmitter to a microwave oven, you're glossing over the fact that the microwave is at *least* 500x the power of the wifi transmitter (highest 802.11n power and lowest microwave power) *at the transmitter* (swallow 1/r^2 if you're not right at the transmitter) and more likely (using a midrange 1.33kW and "normal"-ish 33mW to keep the math easy) puts the microwave at 40,000 times the power of the wifi transmitter at the transmitter.

TFA states a lot of PR from the FCC, the TiVo, and the cable industry on the effects the new rule will have on consumers, but nowhere describes what about the CableCARD rules is actually being changed, and doesn't cite the order to enable people to check for themselves. So I checked the FCC website, the order is here.

Haven't had time to read it myself yet, but hopefully having it will enable people to read it and make comments on the actual content, rather than the fluff in TFA.

The device shown has the FCC ID number "O9EQ2438F-M" on the outside of the box, as required by law. FCC ID numbers can be looked up in the FCC database, where details of the device and pictures of the electronics are available. It's a cell phone module, of course. The FCC was told it was for "stolen currency tracking". The maker was Wavecom, since acquired by Sierra Wireless. The unit dates from 2005.

That's just a standard RF module. That application covers the addition of a spread-spectrum module to upgrade the cell access to support PCS networks. The base device, according to the FCC application, is FCC ID NBI-MTAG216. This is more interesting. It's a "Trac Pak V", from "Spectrum Management LLC" of Carrolton, TX.

When the spread-spectrum module was added, the company issued a press release about it. "Spectrum Management, L.L.C., a global provider of innovative physical and electronic security products which include its proprietary asset tracking and management systems, announced today the completion of its TracPac CS Tag and the development of an all-new web-based tracking and location system. Spectrum has combined technologies with Wavecom, a leading provider of pre-packaged wireless communications solutions for automotive, industrial and mobile professional applications, with a wide range of fully integrated modules and modems. The new Tag design pairs Wavecom's Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) module with GPSOne, and Spectrum's proprietary VHF homing technology to provide a wide range of Location Based Services (LBS). Spectrum Management expects to offer similar tracking and location services on Global System for Mobile (GSM) communications by simply substituting Wavecom's plug-in compatible GSM module."

Spectrum Management's predecessor company was ProNet, which was a public company in the 1990s. They were acquired by Metrocall, and the tracking business was split off as Electronic Tracking Systems. They started as a pager company, but branched out into tracking devices. From their SEC filing: "In 1988, the Company began to apply advanced wireless technology to the security business by marketing radio-activated electronic tracking systems to financial institutions. At December 31, 1996, the Company's security systems consisted of 29,501 miniature radio transmitters, or "TracPacs," in service." Most of these were leased to banks, and attached to items of value or hidden in bundles of currency. The 1990s model was a pre-GPS technology; they had to get local cops to install receivers (like LoJack does) for this to work. So it only worked in a few markets, and they were having trouble expanding, from their SEC filings. The newer technology doesn't have that limitation.

So it's a stock piece of law enforcement equipment, circa 2005.

How about use the FCC ID on the thing to look up the manual and other related documents. Apparently it's meant for surveying work originally. "The GRS receiver is a single-frequency, GPS+GLONASS L1 L2receiver and hand-held controller built to be the most advanced, compact, and portable receiver for the GIS surveying market. An integrated electronic compass and digital camera make the GRS an all-purpose, GIS field mapping unit." https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=933914&fcc_id='O9EQ2438F-M'

actually the devices mush check the database at least daily, the TV station part is mostly unchanging, but the database also includes wireless mic users that are protected and those listing update daily. To be legal the TVBD must check the database for "today's" allowable frequencies. If the database can't be checked the TVBD must shut down till it can get a update from the database. see: http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0924/FCC-10-174A1.pdf pg 41

You've just agreed with the AC. I looked at the FCC data for WPMT - they are transmitting with 933 kW ERP, with ERP being the important difference - that stands for Effective Radiated Power, which takes antenna gain into account. The AC stated that using lower transmitter power coupled with large antennas on the tower are sufficient. I submit that WPMT is using a relatively high gain antenna to obtain the 933 kW ERP. This site says they have a transmitter putting out 20.2 kW with an 18.22 dB gain antenna.

You've just agreed with the AC. I looked at the FCC data for WPMT - they are transmitting with 933 kW ERP, with ERP being the important difference - that stands for Effective Radiated Power, which takes antenna gain into account. The AC stated that using lower transmitter power coupled with large antennas on the tower are sufficient. I submit that WPMT is using a relatively high gain antenna to obtain the 933 kW ERP. This site says they have a transmitter putting out 20.2 kW with an 18.22 dB gain antenna.

points and laughs. (Sec. 706)

The Constitutional "lever" for the FCC has always been the perceived scarcity of the airwaves, necessitating spectrum control and licensing and thus a certain power over broadcasts over transmitters licensed under that authority.

Where is the Constitutional "lever" here, given the First Amendment ? In the case of Cable TV (from the FCC Cable TV Fact sheet web site) this authority was extended :

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities." The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country.

This case in 1968 deals with the transmission of regulated broadcasts over cable, which is not applicable to Internet only broadcasts. (The 1968 Supreme Court ruling is available here.)

I see a big Constitutional fight coming up here at some point, maybe over this bill, maybe not, but at some point. Under what basis does the US Government FCC have power to regulate speech on the Internet ? Anyone can put up a broadcast on the Internet; regulation of those broadcasts is thus a regulation of free speech, and thus a violation of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law") ? Regulation has a tendency to start with sensible things, and wind up with stupidity like the Janet Jackson "breast malfunction" mess. (Do you want your web site or video posting to be done under such rules ?)

The Internet has been the most positive development in the cause of Freedom since the fall of the Berlin Wall. To put it simply, it has given the people a voice that they previously lacked. I hope that we don't screw it up in this country by giving it over to FCC regulations, no matter how sensible they seem on the surface. Applying FCC regulation to the Internet will almost inevitably lead to a situation where only major corporations have the ability (in fact if not in law) to broadcast on the Internet. (If you doubt me, try reading the FCC regs sometime.) The major corporations that own most on-air broadcasting in this country fear the Internet and would love to have it delivered into their hands; any bill that threatens to give them that power should be resisted.

SEC. 104. ACCESS TO INTERNET-BASED SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT. (a) Title VII Amendment- Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the following new sections:

The Communications Act of 1934 (pdf) includes a section on catering to the disabled, which in turn specifically includes (Sec 713 on page 329)

(3) a provider of video programming or program owner may petition the Commission for an exemption from the requirements of this section, and the Commission may grant such petition upon a showing that the requirements contained in this section would result in an undue burden.

(e) UNDUE BURDEN.--The term ''undue burden'' means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the closed captions necessary to comply with the requirements of this paragraph would result in an undue economic burden, the factors to be considered include-- (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner.

So it's probably a similar standard here - companies will have to make reasonable attempts to cater to as broad a population as possible. They can look to prior precedent to determine how far exactly that is.

http://www.fcc.gov/cib/consumerfacts/numbport.html
Background

Under the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) "local number portability" (LNP) rules, so long as you remain in the same geographic area, you can switch telephone service providers, including interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, and keep your existing phone number. If you are moving from one geographic area to another, however, you may not be able to take your number with you. Therefore, subscribers remaining in the same geographic area can now switch from a wireless, wireline, or VoIP provider to any other wireless, wireline, or VoIP provider and still keep their existing phone numbers.

Is the infrastructure for the wireless services created without any government subsidy, government tax break, government money?

This question attempts to frame the issue in a way which doesn't reflect the circumstances. The FCC was established to oversee the entities which licensed portions of the "public airwaves": the airwaves as a resource are a commons, and the licensees are allowed to exploit this commons for profit as long as they don't abuse the privilege.

What Google and Verizon are trying to do is to take this commons and enclose it, making private property of the public resource.

We already saw what happened when they gave cable companies special exceptions to the law by classifying them as an Information Service. Look where it's gotten us. Now the FCC has to try to get them re-classified under the original rules just to enforce fairness.

Although I would expect to see Joe Plumber bilked into rejecting Net Neutrality, I never expected to see such on Slashdot. If a Telecom provider must throttle traffic on their network in order to keep things running, then they should either throttle all traffic evenly, or they should stop overselling their capacity to try to wring every last penny out for their CEO's to the detriment of any customers foolish enough to use their service.

If the US was competitive in the broadband market rather then forced into sponsored monopolies, we would have far more options for providers, better pricing, 100+ Mb lines would be common, and these discussions about lack of available bandwidth would be far less worrisome.

Sorry, you lost me at:

Voters have no way to directly influence FCC policy.

From http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html :

"The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

As the chief executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman delegates management and administrative responsibility to the Managing Director. The Commissioners supervise all FCC activities, delegating responsibilities to staff units and Bureaus."

So, yeah. Yeah we do. And if you paid attention to the news you would have seen articles on this very website about the new FCC chairperson and what they've done to quell anti-net neutrality leanings within the FCC. Take your soap box and get off my lawn!

Just like picking between cellular providers or big banks. Unregulated markets tend to function more like a cartel than a true open market. Limiting choices and competition instead of enhancing it.

I love how the two examples you picked to illustrate the evils of a totally-free market are two of the heavily regulated industries in the nation.

See that's the thing about regulation: it doesn't necessarily help people.* Sometimes, it just raises the barrier of entry to market so high that only a few large, select companies can afford to exist. As you are no doubt aware, it is precisely such a scenario -- a market with only a few massive "competitors" -- that leads to problems.

If the communications market were *truely* free, you'd see scads of small, local GSM-based mobile data providers, innumerable independent OTA broadcasts, etc. As it is now, spectrum licensing fees are so high that "mom and pop" wireless is basically impossible. It's no better when it comes to landlines. AT&T and friends get all sorts of concessions by state and local governments that, were you to ask for the same treatment, would simply get you laughed out of your representative's office.

* Although in many cases it does.

I think we overestimate the role of pop music and crappy movies in our happiness. Lots of people are living without a TV.

In America? Nielsen reports that 99% of American households have at least one TV. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Factsheets/factvchip.html
Culture, be it low or high, plays a large role in keeping the population of nations happy.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/bcenf.html

Absolutely! High SAR was part of the specs for the last three phones I bought. Fortunately, there are lots of sources (e.g. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/ , http://www.freeshield.com/cell-phone-radiation-sar-rating-chart.html )

My phone number is not as portable as I am.

Besides, if I really want a portable number now, I just point Google Voice to my new phone number. It's far less painful and time-consuming.

How about FCC's programs: E-rate and universal lifeline service. The former helped schools and libraries get connected at the expense of higher prices on cell and landline phone bills. Universal lifeline gives low cost phones to poor people. I heard the chairman of the fcc speak on Thursday about potentially changing universal service so that it also offers broadband services to poor people or underserved communities (where they don't have the middle mile backbone to offer internet service to anyone living there).

To be fair, e-rate ends up back in telcos pockets frequently, but FCC recently introduced proposed rule changes to make it possible for schools/libraries to obtain lower cost i-net services from sewer companies, hospitals, city gov'ts or other "anchor institutions" who might already have fiber or other assets to available to reduce costs.. So they are honestly trying (at least under the current chairman).

It was not an NAB event. Here's the FCC announcing that they were holding the event: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-298707A1.pdf

Who will pay for the new MPEG-4 boxes? Will the government be sponsoring another converter box coupon program?

The Mobile DTV standard is not designed for HDTV, and vice versa. The ATSC-MH standard takes about 1.8 Mbps on the standard ATSC side and adds so much error correction that you only get about 0.3 Mbps on the other side. Chopping a whole 19 Mbps channel down to 3 Mbps leaves almost no room even with MPEG-4.

Cellular architecture does not work with ATSC at all, except in severely terrain-shielded situations.

I'm going to side with Skype for no other reason than Fring is acting like a petulant and spoiled child.

As you say, Fring has been making use of Skype's APIs for some time (their blog post says 4 years), and as soon as something goes wrong, they turn around and say this? It's juvenile. The header image speaks volumes, and the document they link to that they claim is Skype "championing the cause of openness" in order to try and make them look hypocritical is a "Petition to Confirm A Consumer's Right to Use Internet Communications Software and Attach Devices to Wireless Networks", which isn't related.

DRM+ will probably mostly use 50kHz channels

I look forward, as always, to listener tests with codecs and frequency separations actually chosen by governments! In particular, to compete with FM spacing requirements. A factor of 2 would absolutely not be worth the transfer, though it seems DRM+ would do better than that, but even 4 seems ephemeral.

There is a risk that people will go 64 kbps MP3 or worse, but you can't blame the standard for that.

One could say the same about DAB, of course. But then we get into the debate about whether engineers should consider the motivations of their employers - many people seem to say no, I always say yes.

Degradation is fairly binary -- either you have reception or you don't. I consider that a feature.

Have to disagree very strongly with this. I would like to be able to hear well, but if I can't hear well then I still want to be able to hear. Human brains are great at separating the signal from the noise whether it's in a crowd or on the radio. I don't see why we wouldn't take advantage of this.

Traditionally you'd only do one audio stream per MUX in DRM.

Thanks for this clarification. Yes, bandwidth seems insufficient to consider more than one audio stream.

>>>>> I believe you're wrong. I'm not aware of any FCC mandate that says Cable companies must switch to digital.
>>
>> http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html See the top section of this page. This was mandated by the FCC. As I recall they want to use the analog spectrum for cell phone's as the spectrum provides better signal penetration.
>>

That's true - channels 52 through 83 were given-over to cellular and other servies. BUT I was talking about CABLE which runs through a wire and doesn't interfere with wireless cellphones. Cable and over-the-air are different things.

I believe you're wrong. I'm not aware of any FCC mandate that says Cable companies must switch to digital.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.html See the top section of this page. This was mandated by the FCC. As I recall they want to use the analog spectrum for cell phone's as the spectrum provides better signal penetration. So the fcc can sell the spectrum to the highest bidder. It's all about the money (this answer can also be applied to your sig).

FCC Rules
The 3rd option is OK, but most script readers know what that tone means.

*If you're in enforcement or intelligence and have a 3-5 letter acronym you are exempt. Record them all!!!

Can somebody please point out this apparent "little-known" clause to the Communications Act of 1934 that was inserted during January of 1942.

You might be able to find it in the Communications Act of 1934 as amended or the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I'm too lazy to look myself. Thanks.

Can somebody please point out this apparent "little-known" clause to the Communications Act of 1934 that was inserted during January of 1942.

You might be able to find it in the Communications Act of 1934 as amended or the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I'm too lazy to look myself. Thanks.

Amen! I mostly listen to http://www.897theriver.com/ from Iowa Western Community College which does have a 100,000 watt transmitter a covers a fairly significant area http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/FMTV-service-area?x=FM34155.html

If you talk over a CB radio you don't expect a private conversation too do you?

That's what common sense would dictate, but that didn't stop the cellular phone industry back in the analog-only days. They jammed through several pathentic laws to 'prevent' eavesdropping of in-the-clear cellular phone conversations instead of doing any sort of obfuscation or encryption. A simple frequency inversion technique or noxious filterable carrier tone would've prevented casual eavesdropping at the cost of pennies per phone.

The industry apparently found it less expensive to buy Congressmen that better handsets. Once again, we all lose a little freedom in the name of corporate profits when our elected officials can be 'bought'.

If you talk over a CB radio you don't expect a private conversation too do you?

That's what common sense would dictate, but that didn't stop the cellular phone industry back in the analog-only days. They jammed through several pathentic laws to 'prevent' eavesdropping of in-the-clear cellular phone conversations instead of doing any sort of obfuscation or encryption. A simple frequency inversion technique or noxious filterable carrier tone would've prevented casual eavesdropping at the cost of pennies per phone.

The industry apparently found it less expensive to buy Congressmen that better handsets. Once again, we all lose a little freedom in the name of corporate profits when our elected officials can be 'bought'.

punch in 12428 here: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ and let me know if you get any channels... If you do, then the universal alignment is 2.5 years early and you fell into another dimension..

Here's what you can do without the very 'spensive custom 'ware the big guyz use.
1. Go to tower site.
2. Back off a couple of blocks on the axis of the "Alpha" lobe antenna.
3. a. Take a reading of signal strength, log it.
3. b. FTP a file up and down, log time required.
3. c. Run Speedtest.net, log results.
3. d. Run Speakeasy.net/speedtest/ , log results.
4. Run out a half a mile or so on the "Alpha" axis, keep going until the carrier is -20db.
5. Repeat #3.
6. Go out as far as you can on the "Alpha" axis and still get one bar of signal. Log the location.
7. Back to the tower, find the "Beta" lobe, back off a couple of blocks, repeat steps 3-4-5-6.
8. Back to the tower, find the "Gamma" lobe (if there is one), back off a couple of blocks, repeat steps 3-4-5-6.

9. Repeat for every town in your area of concern.

These links may be helpful in locating towers. Remember towers are often shared.
http://www.antennasearch.com/
http://www.celltowerinfo.com/CellTowerLocationMapsIndex.htm
http://www.crowncastle.com/tower-rental-services/tower-locator.aspx
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp

However, don't be surprised if you find towers absent or not listed. I reported one dedicated location as being 300' away from the location specified in the FCC license, and the reaction from the engineers led me to believe this was not uncommon.

And, as noted previously, don't be surprised if the sales droids give you the 'Mechanic's Shrug' and then redouble their efforts by inviting your bosses' boss out to the golf course.

For the details, you can head on over to The FCC's site and read their headlines released on today's (5/6/2010) date. Also, the general counsel of the FCC gives a decent explanation of what the FCC is trying to achieve here and you can read the chairman's remarks on the matter here. The rest of the headlines are in pdf format and I haven't bothered to read them yet as I prefer HTML.

The approach the FCC seems to want to take is applying very select sections of Title II regulations to Comcast while still keeping all ISP's classified in the manner they are. They seem to think this is the best approach because it will give the FCC the authority to step in on ISP business when necessary, without giving the FCC sweeping authority to over-regulate the internet as some 'dotters have worried about. All in all, it seems like, theoretically, a nice approach to take. Of course, there was so much legal jargon in the statements made that I am certain both sides in the Comcast case will find all sorts of loopholes to exploit if things don't go their way in the future. Then again, this kind of political maneuvering really isn't my field so I am not one to judge the matter particularly well.

But you seemed concerned that they would.

Nope. As long as they stay within their statutory authority, I expressed no misgivings (other than that the only reason we "need" Net Neutrality is because of over-regulation in the first place, but that's beside the point).

Although, since then I've read the "third way" document and now I do have concerns: that they are trying to shoehorn Net Neutrality into a regulatory framework not designed for it.

I can see your point, but honestly the correct way would be for the FCC to re-designate ISPs back to Title II

I disagree. I agree with FCC Chairman Genachowski who said today:

... fully reclassifying broadband services as “telecommunications services” and applying the full suite of Title II obligations, has serious drawbacks. While it would clarify the legal foundation for broadband policy, it would also subject the providers of broadband communications services to extensive regulations ill-suited to broadband. Title II, for example, includes measures that, if implemented for broadband, would fail to reflect the long-standing bipartisan consensus that the Internet should remain unregulated and that broadband networks should have only those rules necessary to promote essential goals, such as protecting consumers and fair competition.

As I said in another comment yesterday: reclassifying to Title II merely to be able to implement Net Neutrality is short-sighted, because a lot more comes along with it.

A lot of you have very good arguments for this. I encourage you to take the same few seconds it takes you to post here, and send an email to the FCC Chairman himself. Please be understandable and civil. It helps their cause when they hear a lot of support.

    http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/mail.html

Gosh. If it were that easy to keep things quiet with the FCC, you'd have thought that Apple would've known about it.

Instead, we get this.

Hmm.