Slashdot Mirror

But a lot of times, K-12, Internet is heavily filtered to block sites offering even non-pornographic entertainment, to the point where it interferes with legitimate course work.

I'll assume that the word "entertainment" isn't really what you meant (we can argue about the value of entertainment in an educational setting if you like ;^), but I'll respond to the crux of your point - they filter because they have to - it's a federal requirement, called CIPA, filtering must be in-place before the school can receive eRate funding (federal money for their technology expenditures).

Links:

CIPA: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html

eRate: http://www2.ed.gov/Technology/overview.html

Wrong. That wasn't the ruling. That was the sensationalist headline put out by all the news outlets to get ad viewers. Read the commission statement regarding that case: http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/ The court merely invalidated one of the enforcement methods the FCC was using.

The FCC has ruled that condo/homeowner associations cannot restrict the installation of (small) satellite dishes or antennas for receiving television or Internet services. There are certain exemptions for historical preservation and such but other than that they must make reasonable accommodations. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Bah. The PDF in question.. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf

I love reading the enforcement actions section of the FCC Web site. Sure, most of it is boring--power companies causing RFI, CBers with linears causing interference on 10 meters, repeater issues--but sometimes there's some really juicy stuff.

As a self-policed service, the people who did get the big fancy certificate will likely track down your whereabouts and report you to the gubbermint.

At which point you're hosed. The "Warning Letters" section is always fun. Excerpt: " Operation of radio transmitting equipment without a valid FCC authorization is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and may subject the responsible parties to substantial monetary forfeitures, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. Because unlicensed operation creates a danger of interference to important radio communications services and may subject the operator to severe penalties, this warning emphasizes the importance of complying strictly with these legal requirements. UNAUTHORIZED OPERATION OF THIS RADIO STATION MUST CEASE IMMEDIATELY. "

What government body, precisely, regulates your use of foul language?

That would be the FCC

paying 40% more for the same service than our neighbors down the road whose condo board allowed satellite dishes.

.

Not strictly on topic, but I am endlessly amazed at the condo, apartment and rental unit operators who try to restrict satellite dishes. Except for some special cases (ex., you're in a historical district or putting up the dish would present a safety hazard), they CANNOT restrict satellite dishes that are less than 1 meter in size.

See the FCC's policy on receiving antennas (including satellite dishes) here.

Practically speaking, you'll typically have to get the FCC involved (which takes time) and you'll have a real fight on your hands (a typical homeowner's association can be one of the most recalcitrant beasts on the planet), but the FCC takes your right to receive a satellite signal quite seriously.

My HOA has a rule against external television antennas

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

Your HOA may have that rule, but it's meaningless because federal law prohibits such rules.

I had a friend who wanted to install a rooftop antenna, and he wanted help putting it up. He actually wasted a good deal of time trying to "be nice" to his HOA and asking for permission, but after 2-3 evenings wasted at meetings offering up plans he came to me in frustration and said he feared he had just wasted $150 on antenna gear.

I printed out the FCC sheet on a Wednesday and told him to continue to be polite and go to one last meeting, present them with the sheet, and offer them 24 hours to pen up whatever fluffy forms made them happy with their decision before he would call the FCC and file a grievance. The HOA worked up a long sheet of what colors the antenna and its cable were allowed to be, blah blah. He handed it to me, and I promised we would be in complete compliance with all valid rules. Then I installed the antenna properly and underlined the bits of the HOA "rules" I had violated for his reference, and told him to print out another copy of the FCC regs just in case he had to call.

I wanted to paint the goddamned thing safety orange when we were finally done dealing with the HOA, umm, "unpleasantness".

But, he invited me over to a few games in High Def (the only way to get HD in that area at the time, the cable companies wouldn't even offer it), so that made the hassle worthwhile.

I've rented houses under HOA restriction, and there's no way on this earth I'd buy a house covenanted by one.

Do you know what payola is? It's a company secretly paying a radio station to play songs so they become popular and sell records. If they disclose that a song is sponsored it isn't payola. Viacom didn't technically pay to have their videos watched to make them popular, they had people pretend to put videos up with the intent to get their broadcast shows more viewer... so maybe it is not exactly the same as payola but still fraud in my opinion.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/PayolaRules.html

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

"Broadband as a right" should be as much a right as guns are. If you want to buy a connection to the internet, you should be able to get one. If the government needs a $5 subsidy from all people connected to the internet to pay for such a right, it's about time. The internet is becoming such a backbone to society that we should view it like electricity or water or sewage.

Also, this isn't a "state run" plan. It's paying a tax to subsidize corporations to provide the service, much like landline phone companies are forced to provide cheap phone connections to those who can't pay.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html

The actual remarks by Commissioner Clyburn are a lot less technical than the SL summary implies. What she wants doesn't have so much to do with the physical deployment of broadband (the "last mile"), as it does with actually adopting the broadband that's available (what she called the last "half-mile".)

Apparently, 93 million Americans don't use broadband, even though they could. Why? The Commish says its because 1) broadband costs too much, 2) non-users lack "digital literacy", and 3) non-users just don't see the benefit. Her proposed fixes have a lot more in common with the Peace Corps than with the White Spaces Coalition: provide free broadband to the poor, and form a National Digital Literacy Corps to deliver a National Digital Literacy Program while going home-to-home to help set up broadband. Her model is the recent national switch-over to digital TV, where hundreds of thousands of volunteers went around and hooked people's TVs up.

Hence, depends on the wattage coming out of that tower--how many antennas, antenna shapes, etc...

If we're saying a tower's ERP is 50W+, you may want to rethinking buying, otherwise, inverse square law is you're friend. Also, your building is likely steel beam/mesh/rebarb-reinforced concrete, which absorbs/attenuates a lot of those cell frequencies since they are quite high in the spectrum. All you would need to worry about are windows. The FCC does have some info here.

On the positive side, you would have advertised 3G speeds and a solid connection that you could for-go having a broadband setup. And as mentioned, yes, phone next to head can be about 1-2W at a distance of 10mm for a perspective.

IMO, I think being a construction worker (in the hot sun, smog, noise, everyday), is more hazardous.

Here's a link to the FCC and OET regulations that the cell company has to comply with.
If there are multiple antennas from different installations, they have to take those into account too.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/

Regardless of its effects on your health, EM radiation can heat up deep under your skin. I wouldn't buy that apartment, as I'd then be anticipating continuous uncomfortable heat.

The continuous uncomfortable heat comes from being on the top floor in the summer and having to air condition the asphalt roof. Your electric bill will resemble a McMansion rather than an apartment. I have experience with that scenario. The second to the top floor is actually the best location.

The FCC has an ultra wordy explanation of cell transmitter power

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html

The wikipedia cuts to the chase and calls it about 100 watts total for an urban site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site

Based on r^2 scaling laws, assuming you don't literally wrap your body around the antennas to keep warm while you sleep, I don't think you'll get more than a tiny fraction of a watt, much less than a cellphone in a pocket, probably.

...and once transmitting at more than 50W, HAMs must conduct a station evaluation to make sure no excessive fields pose a hazard to humans or animals, according to FCC rules. Also, see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html. When considering these antennae, also consider that they are likely to be very high duty cycle and directional (rather than omnidirectional) which increases the radiation density. When using directional antennae with 2.4 GHz Wifi, you're limited to tens of milliwatts or even less, depending on the gain. Sum: I'd worry.

A sector antenna typically boosts power levels by 15 dB due to the fact that it "concentrates" the radio waves towards a certain direction. But because of the "boost", the radios in the urban towers reduce their power output considerably. In fact, typical urban power levels are 10 watt ERP (with actual radio power of half a watt) is common (see http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html).

But this assumes that the sector antennas are aimed directly at his prospective apartment unit. If they're not aimed at him, the power levels are far lower than just the bare .5 watt radios because the power that would have gone towards him are being redirected by the sector antennas. But even if he's in the hot zone for those antennas at 20 feet away, I really doubt his power level is more than -10 dBm which is still really low compared to your own cell phone. Furthermore, having that much signal just means you'll get less overall exposure because your cell phone can use much lower power levels.

Now the original post mentioned "panel antennas" which are highly directional and typically used for backhaul. Those I'm almost certain aren't facing his apartment because that would kind of make those antennas useless since they need a clear line of sight.

Many of their phone-specific pages cite the manufacturer as the only data source. This includes a phone I'm playing with at the moment, which happens to have one of the worst SAR ratings on the ewg.org list. (Worse than the Blackberry.) I followed their link, and it brought me to a user manual, which did in fact show the same values shown on the list.

Call me paranoid, but that didn't really satisfy me. For one thing, I don't trust user manuals all that much when it comes to fine details that might have changed since they were written. For another, this phone supports several different radio frequencies, including Wi-Fi and several different GSM bands, yet the manual and ewg.org fail to reflect this with multiple SAR values. So, I looked up the FCC ID for my phone and followed it to the FCC's radiation report on that model. What I found was much more informative.

As you might expect, the FCC's SAR measurements showed quite a range of values, depending on which radio is in use, which channel is in use, and how the phone is held. According to this data, my particular phone habits and service provider should yield around half the SAR that was reported by ewg.org, comparable to their best-rated models.

This exercise was interesting, and set my mind at ease a little, but I'm still going to use a wired headset whenever possible. Again, call me paranoid if you like. There simply hasn't been enough time for us to observe the long-term effects of having a microwave broadcast antenna plastered to our heads, and I don't trust studies that claim all is well when they're funded by the cell phone industry.

Some of you might find this US Senate hearing interesting:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm

1. If you read the presentation, he's actually setting the 100 Mbps as a goal, and sets out some "recommendations" for ways to achieve it. No mandates yet.

2. 100Mbps in 10 years from now ought to be a dawdle. Hell, 100Mbps next week would be possible here if the Fios people would install to my building. Japan's average network speed right now is 50 Mbps. US companies know that it would cost them money to upgrade their infrastructure, and with most markets being historically-defined monopolies or oligopoloys, they have no incentive to compete.

3. Of course it's the government's place to mandate minimum speeds and other standards. What do you think the FCC does? "These frequencies use that standard with that much energy. This telephone exchange uses that protocol with these power standards at that transmission rate." They define "broadband" as minimum 750kbps (ha!). If they want to define the "High-Speed Broadband" label as minimum 100Mbps for clarity's sake, and encourage its adoption, that's exactly what they're there for.

Here's a bit of follow up with more resources.

These links contain the following documents in pdf format:
High-Speed Access to the Internet over Cable, Declaratory Ruling & NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd 4798 (2002).

Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, R&O and NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 14853 (2005)

Finally, on why your cable internet company couldn't be sued for infringement by your customers, this is due to 17 USC 512(a) (or maybe (b) also), which reads: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in sub- section (j), for injunctive or other equitable re- lief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections..." It goes on to provide 5 elements that have to be shown. At no point does it mention "common carriers" or anything of the like. Frankly, that section was crafted to provide ISPs safe harbor protection from "secondary liability," AKA "contributory infringement" or "vicarious infringement." It was passed as part of the DMCA. Again, it has nothing to do with common carrier status.

You can find 17 USC 512 here.

Here's a bit of follow up with more resources.

These links contain the following documents in pdf format:
High-Speed Access to the Internet over Cable, Declaratory Ruling & NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd 4798 (2002).

Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, R&O and NPRM, 20 FCC Rcd 14853 (2005)

Finally, on why your cable internet company couldn't be sued for infringement by your customers, this is due to 17 USC 512(a) (or maybe (b) also), which reads: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in sub- section (j), for injunctive or other equitable re- lief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections..." It goes on to provide 5 elements that have to be shown. At no point does it mention "common carriers" or anything of the like. Frankly, that section was crafted to provide ISPs safe harbor protection from "secondary liability," AKA "contributory infringement" or "vicarious infringement." It was passed as part of the DMCA. Again, it has nothing to do with common carrier status.

You can find 17 USC 512 here.

While our USC Code nonsense is nice, it isn't their original mission statement, and while your argument looks good on the surface i.e. your code is law The problem is the law isn't the original mission statement

(LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING!)
under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.

vs. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/internet.html (They say they don't control the internet eh?)

vs

http://www.fcc.gov/oig/oigmission.html

Basically says "To be an agent of positive change, striving for continuous improvement in FCC's management and program operations."

Bzzzzt. while that may be the fsckin oig's. that's not the "original mission statement"

under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.

The original mission statement is fucking
shredded. I ain't on no fucking psyop mission, I ain't crazy, I ain't shit, I am simply pointing out fact here, this ain't no conspiracy on my part, it's a fucking fact, it's fucked up. It's why you DONT SEE their fucking mission statement like I said.

under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.

While our USC Code nonsense is nice, it isn't their original mission statement, and while your argument looks good on the surface i.e. your code is law The problem is the law isn't the original mission statement

(LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING!)
under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.

vs. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/internet.html (They say they don't control the internet eh?)

vs

http://www.fcc.gov/oig/oigmission.html

Basically says "To be an agent of positive change, striving for continuous improvement in FCC's management and program operations."

Bzzzzt. while that may be the fsckin oig's. that's not the "original mission statement"

under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.

The original mission statement is fucking
shredded. I ain't on no fucking psyop mission, I ain't crazy, I ain't shit, I am simply pointing out fact here, this ain't no conspiracy on my part, it's a fucking fact, it's fucked up. It's why you DONT SEE their fucking mission statement like I said.

under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.

I'm absolutely no expert, but weren't many of those stations pumping 50,000 watts (with some short lived experiments with 250-500 kilowatts) through their antennas?

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/amq.html

The standard daytime power level for the big ones is 50 KW, medium-ish stations run around 10 KW, and the smallest stations during the night might barely go 100 watts.

Want high power, try old fashioned UHF TV superstations around a megawatt.

Jeez got your panties in a wad eh?

I should clarify then. The signal sent on a fiber is usually a single frequency unless you are multiplexing (ie WDM, DWDM or CWDM). The term broadband has many connotations, but it generally doesn't apply to a single frequency signal

Modems using speeds 4800 and up are indeed using a wide frequency range, versus a pair of FSK frequencies like the original Bell 300 baud standard.

You do have a point about "high speed". We just need to look at USB specs for an example of that. FTTH (fiber to the home?) can indeed use multiplexing.

Which law are you referring to as the Recovery Act doesn't define broadband, but just refers to boradband service. FCC has defined broadband http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html.

I looked it up, subpart G
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr95.pdf
http://www.csgnetwork.com/lprsfreqtable.html

What section do those miniFM transmitters operate under for things like broadcasting your iPod in car? It doesn't look like it is Part 95.

Yes - I'm sure they will be able to use a cell phone when the power is out.

The rest of your question is based on a situation that will have ceased to exist by the time I drop VOIP.

Though I find the likelihood of intruders holding my kids hostage to be extremely unlikely. I plan for a wide range of contingencies, but if someone has overcome everything else, I don't think the lack of a land line will be a major factor in any outcome.

This is an excellent suggestion, but not quite complete. Do not just complain. Ask for instructions on how to change the setting back to what it was. Under no conditions should you accept that it can not be done. You could change it yesterday, so you must be able to change it today, right? Be nice to the poor guy on the other end of the line. He is not at fault. But, when he says you can't change it kindly say that you believe he does not know how, and then demand to talk to a senior technical person so you can get your phone working again. Stay on the phone as long as possible and talk to as many people as possible.

After you call Verizon and complain you *must* then call the FCC. You can find the number at http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm?sid=d1e640&id=d1e697 or just 1-888-225-5322 if you trust me :-) Then, you call the senators and your representative. You find your senator at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and then your representative at http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.html

Calling Verizon costs Verizon money, but it will not force them to change their actions. Calling the FCC forces the agency that regulates Verison to take notice of what Verizon has done. If the FCC doesn't get complaints they are not forced to "notice" the problem. Calling the Senate and the House of representatives makes sure that the people who make the laws that govern Verizon notice that the people who vote for them are not happy with the laws that govern Verizon. Believe it or not, no matter how large a bribe ... OK "campaign contribution" your elected officials have been paid by Verizon (each and everyone of them has been bribed by Verizon) they will take action if they think it will affect their ability to stay in office. You see, no matter how much money Verizon can give them, Verizon can not vote for them. And the elected bastards know one thing, if they do not get elected they get no more goodies from Verizon and the rest of the megacorps.

And, Ya'know, if you are just feeling mean, call Microsoft support and ask how to turn off Bing on your phone. It is their product, they should know, right?

The idea is to make this policy change as costly for Verizon as possible. That means you make them pay to handle your calls and you make them pay even more by generating bad feelings toward them in the Senate and the House.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. If you want to call and leave a comment for at the White House for President Obomo, 202-456-1111 or, if you do not trust me as you should not, you can find the number here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact. You can also send an email from there.

Stonewolf.

Why isn't this information listed at the top of the page on Slashdot?

Just as long as he doesn't violate FCC rules by retransmitting it (unless it's playing from the space shuttle)

I understand AT&T's position. They simply cannot grow their network fast enough to keep up, and the lack of bandwidth is a pain shared with all customers. The problem AT&T is having is that the iPhone isn't unique anymore. There is Droid and Palm and they'll still have unlimited data plans. Plus, if the iPhone U.S. exclusivity ends, the other carriers will quickly start offering the iPhone too.

AT&T can't charge for data plans if no one else does.

You believe AT&T? Based upon what data? Their FCC reg filings show them in compliance with their cell network...

Of course, they did screw all of us over the E-911 and have to pay a $2meg fine. See, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-227226A1.html

So, in sum - AT&T reports to the FCC that their network is within regulatory standards and AT&T has a corporate history of lying and ripping off its customers.

You elect to believe AT&T, eh? I have a bridge on the south-east side of Manhattan I'd like to sell you and, yes - I do take Paypal....

I used to run Myth ~2 years ago, but got fed up with issues and linux in general (ok, so kill me slashdot). Then I switched to SageTV which was nice for a while.

IR control: At the time I used WinLirc to transmit IR to control my Dish network box and it worked pretty well. Needed a custom script to take SageTV's channel changing format and translate it to WinLirc's format, but worked after some tweaks. Not sure about motorola but don't see why it would be a problem with enough work - LIRC has a great resource for IR codes. [I was using a homebrew IR blaster... basically an IR diode and a resistor hanging off the DTR line of the serial port]

Built a new HTPC 2 months ago with Win XP for simplicity and netflix access. I tried both GB-PVR and MediaPortal. Mediaportal looks flashier, but the UI is much slower and lacks a few key features... which is why I went back to GB-PVR. I've been very happy. Very few crashes, but should probably setup a weekly reboot for insurance. Yeah it's not open source, but it's still free. There's a plugin for GBPVR which will let you launch Zinc for all your streaming content, including netflix. There's a FANTASTIC web interface, including the ability to stream any of your recordings (think Slingbox). There's a plugin to control uTorrent. And GBPVR can work directly with a media extender like Popcorn Hour, if you don't want to have another PC for another room. [Though you can build a whole mini PC for the other room for the same cost as a popcorn hour]

A friend of mine tried Windows 7's media center features and is very happy. His small daughters can run it, including playing back all of their DVD's that he has ripped to a server.

In the unlikely event that anyone is actually interested:

TUNER: I built the HTPC with a Hauppauge 1600 tuner card. Initially intending to get free ATSC over the air, I discovered I could get the same channels from my cable provider in clear QAM without needing the antenna. (Cable is for cable modem only). The digital side of the tuner can record more than 1 stream as long as it's on the same physical RF channel. Plus I can use the analog tuner simultaneously for standard-def recording. So I can record 2+ shows at once, from one card.

MOTHERBOARD: I put that in a mini itx case on an intel atom 330 mobo with s-video output and built in spdif audio (though I did have to make my own cable for the spdif). Svideo was useful until I got a better TV. Mobo only has VGA output, so that limited my HDTV selection slightly, but not bad. The whole thing (tuner, mobo, case, ram, HD) was http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813121359
review, explaining video capability at 1080p: http://www.mini-itx.com/reviews/atoms/default.asp?page=8

GUIDE DATA: setup was a pain (and a real learning curve about digital TV), but now that I got it all figured out I'm getting it for free using MC2XML.

Good DTV / QAM Channel references:

http://www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/channels_us
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx
http://www.titantv.com/
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/

They know how to do it. They have CORES already. You register, you get an ID, you use it to fill out forms and pay bills. In the case of whitespace, you register, you get an ID, you use it to fill out forms, and not pay bills. Easy.

Dude, how fucking lazy are you? You can't even fucking Google it? Well just to show I'm a nice guy is PBS good enough for you? This ain't some big secret, or even something debatable like whether or not AGW is caused by CO2 or something else, this is pretty well written about. In Bill Clinton's first term he championed nationwide broadband, he got "the Telecommunications Act of 1996" which btw, feel free to look up, that gave the telecos/cablecos 200 BILLION for providing nationwide broadband.

What did we get? "Hey thanks for the free money. Now excuse us while we raise rates and don't run any lines. Oh yeah, go fuck yourself too!". is what we got. But hey, don't take my word for it. I just gave you the bill to look up and everything. Feel free to see how you paid for nationwide and got the finger. Of course if you can't Google it here is the FCC page, all 300 plus text files with all the little details. Oh and here is a free eBook that gives you plenty of facts, page numbers for the bills, etc. It is all there in B&W.

Like I said, it ain't no secret, they just screwed you, me, and everyone else in the USA raw and kept the money.

Yes... when it comes to matters the US government is concerned about, the UN has often acted as an extension of the USG in the past.

However, it does not appear one can really say the US government opposes internet censorship or utilizing technical means to control people.

All signs point to a politically strong faction of the US government openly supporting censorship, even towards requiring ISPs proliferate (otherwise scarce) technical measures that are capable of suppressing speech.

Examples: Congress may Require ISPs to block certain fraud sites, CIPA, COPA, Communications Decency Act, Executive Order 13233, the 1943 Surprise Hurricane (and the major loss of lives that resulted from the US Government's censorship of critical Forecast info), California Assembly Bills 1792, 1793 restricting the sale of violent video games, both signed into law

Did the search. Here is an FCC Study supporting it.

The fees paid to the FCC seem to be meant to reflect the cost of processing the application and performing the FCC's regulatory duties. Not a word about paying to use the spectrum itself. [src]

Also, on this page you can view the current filings which so far include a guy who's made two that are entirely unrelated, posted five times, and make him look like a retard... and a psychologist that tells them to leave it the hell alone.

And the psychologist cites his sources.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view?name=09-194

Standard: for international, attachments, lawyers.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view.action?name=09-194

Express: for individuals. Note that the proceeding number is 09-194 and it's not in the list.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/express

You can talk about it all day long here, but until you submit a comment it doesn't matter.

Standard: for international, attachments, lawyers.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/proceeding/view.action?name=09-194

Express: for individuals. Note that the proceeding number is 09-194 and it's not in the list.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/express

You can talk about it all day long here, but until you submit a comment it doesn't matter.

I just shared my support for net neutrality with the FCC, and you can too! Go here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/upload/display?z=ydawa Enter 09-191 in the "Proceeding" text box, and fill out your contact info. Paste this, or a variation of it, or your own thoughts: I am very strongly in support of net neutrality, and hope the FCC enacts rules that will prohibit any internet provider from offering preferential internet access to some sources or types of data, and offering inferior access to other sources or types. I believe that the internet has been an engine of creativity in large part because of its openness and low barriers to entry. Without net neutrality, the internet may not be able to continue in its role as an economic driver and source of information and innovation.

Here is the FCC's briefing to the courts on the case.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293573A1.pdf

It's not ODF, but the FCC does release all documents in pdf and plain text. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf or http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.txt

It's not ODF, but the FCC does release all documents in pdf and plain text. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.pdf or http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294159A1.txt

Why Claudville? According to the Wikipedia page, there are around 20,000 people in the entire county. And according to the FCC DTV maps, they can only expect to receive two (!) TV stations, both from the Winston-Salem, North Carolina area. See here: (enter Claudville, VA) http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/

That is perhaps why they are testing it there. Its not hard to avoid active TV channels if there are only two.. and they are on adjacent RF channels (31 and 32).

-molo

I also work in a regulated industry and recently our CEO sent out a memo suggesting employees write their Congressman about a proposed law that could seriously hurt our business. It doesn't matter where the urging comes from since it's not like the CEO can tell that you've followed his suggestion or not.

That's nice, but here we're not talking about letters to your Congressional representative, we're talking about comments to be filed as part of a formal FCC rulemaking process. Comments filed in a formal rulemaking process are public records. In fact, the FCC has an online search system that lets you search all filed comments, by, among other things, the name of the person or entity filing the comment, and the results include additional information like the mailing address of the filer.

Consequently, especially if you are only worried about positive confirmation (IOW, if you don't mind some false negatives, but want to be fairly immune to false positives), its pretty easy for an employer to check if their employees have followed through on such a "recommendation."

I think you're probably wrong about that. Typically the local government offered a biddable contract, to which multiple companies applied, and then the winning company was granted the exclusive rights to lay the coaxial television cable. i.e. Government-granted monopoly.

This was true in many areas in the past. However, the federal government preempted state and local governments and prohibited exclusive cable franchises back in the 1996. See this FCC fact sheet from 2000:

• The Communications Act requires that no new cable operator may provide service without a franchise and establishes several policies relating to franchising requirements and franchise fees. The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.

The telephone companies used this law to start offering home television service.

Ahh, yes. It's to stop the terrorists and block crimes. That's why we violate the NSA charter (by doing domestic spying), the Constitution (by monitoring without court order or any evidence of wrong-doing).

You need to slow down a bit and stop dragging ignorance into your conversation. First, a NSA charter has little to no legal meaning. I'm suspecting that your talking about the NSA's TSP which was within it's charter, just not the technical language of the FISA laws. However, FISA is questionable on the subject and there is good merit to the idea it wouldn't have applied because the president has constitutional authority to collect national security information. Your also completely wrong about the constitution and monitoring without a court order. There has always been ways to monitor citizens, directly or indirectly, through telecoms or traditional bugging devices without a warrant. The only constitutional protections you gain is against unreasonable searches, not all searches.

But back to the president's constitutional authority, the biggest argument in favor of this is that congress has historically believed the president had constitutional authority to conduct surveillance for national security means. And this belief existed well before Bush or anyone was in office. Public law 90-351 or the Omnibus crime control safe streets act 1968 had this idea written in it. Section 2511 part 3 specifically inferred a constitutional authority when it states

Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1143; 47 U.S.C. 605) shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign in-. telligence information deemed essential to the security of the United
States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities. Nor shall anything contained in this chapter be deemed to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such. measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States
against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government. The contents of any wire or oral communication intercepted by authority of the President in the exercise
of the foregoing powers may be received in evidence in any trial hearing, or other proceeding only where such interception was reasonable, and shall not be otherwise used or disclosed except as is necessary to implement that power.

This was further backed up by court decisions that assumed the president had the constitutional authority to do just that- without a warrant. In fact, a warrant wasn't even required until 1968 when the courts finally extended the fourth to telecommunications.

And the infiltration was to "stop crimes". R-i-i-g-h-t. And declaring a "free-speech zone" is one thing, secret monitoring and infiltration is another. That's straight out of the 1960's Vietnam era playbook, and McCarthy eara as well.

Lol.. Nope. If an organization is open to the public, then the public can join whether they are police, FBI, or not. Or do you somehow think they are walled off from society and deserve their own little special circles and clubs. I hope not because it would be a hell of a lot worse then your pretending it to be.

And it's done "to stop crime". Sure, that's the excuse given. But please name a _single prosecution_ or a single crime actually stopped by either of those efforts. Then tell me how it's "different" from McCarthy era wiretaps. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.

A single prosecution of a crime tha

Go watch Fox News. The attitudes that senator McCarthy embodied and fostered are alive and well, and frighteningly accepted by some listeners. And dear god, if you actually read the Patriot Act, you see the fostering of exactly the same sort of star chamber and secret political monitoring "to stop terrorism" that McCarthy rode on "to stop Communism".

Nonsense. The big difference is that Terrorism isn't legal and no one with a sound mind thinks it should be legal. The programs on fox news or any other news show is nothing more then ideologue bullshit spouted by idiots with no real power over anyone or any establishment.

I'm not saying it's gotten as bad as it was in McCarthy's hey-day, but given the AT&T fiber-optic spying and similar behavior, and the clear use of domestic and foreign intelligence and security resources for political uses (especially under Bush and Cheney), it's hard to ignore the continuing risks. (Go review what happened to the protesters of the Republican national convention in 2004 for examples.)

Let's see, where to start. ATT's Fiber optic spying was because of a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. The FISA bungle that is the NSA TSP isn't McCarthyism at all unless you can somehow justify terrorism. But then I would suggest that says more about you then the government.

Finally, what spying was used for political gain? Sure, government agents infiltrated political protest organizations and gathered intelligence in order to prevent them from committing crimes. I'm not sure why you are pretending it only happened to republican protesters as it's been happening to democrat rallies for the longest time. In fact, the free speech zones were started by democrats not wanting a repeat of the Chicago riots during their national convention in 1968. Again, the biggest difference is that it's being used to prevent illegal behavior which was illegal long before terrorist or your disdain for republicans or fox news ever existed.

Your trying to make something of nothing and it isn't working to well for you. Perhaps you seriously don't see the difference which is why I suggest you get more then the cliff notes version of McCarthyism.

The FCC allows transmitters below a certain power level, and transmissions on certain very high frequencies without license. There is a PDF doc on that, and a discussion on the ARLL site which shed light on this.

Not all transmitters need be licensed, not even all operated, although if they are commercial products they must be registered. That's why some devices have the legend This product does not emit any RF at power levels or frequencies regulated by the FCC instead of an FCC number.

There's a ton of detail at those two links which clarify that there are some unregulated areas, although they are not where you would use them for blocking cell phones.