Slashdot Mirror

The FCC is currently doing a full review of the telecomminications policy for Internet neutrality. I caught some of these sessions on CSPAN with Verizon coming up roses. I'm sure the FCC would be quite interested in knowing that Verizon is not the good network citizen that it claims it is. Here's the FCC link to file.

From the Federal Communications Commission's "About Us" page:

"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. 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. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions."

Are the cell phone networks really that helpless in that they cannot cap usages on cell phones?

You've obviously never heard of that little group called the Federal Communications Commission http://fcc.gov/

Yeah but you can put up a dish no matter what your apartment manager says. You can put up the biggest most unsightly satelite dish (on TV antenna) despite the most aggressive HOA. You are protected by the FEDS!

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

Thanks for the reference. I believe, though, that the surveillence which is allowed without a warrant applies only to non-"US Persons" which the document describes on page 4 under section 102 "Authorization for Electronic Surveillance for Foreign Intelligence Purposes". It further restricts this under (B) "There is no substantial likelyhood that the surveillance will aquire the contents of any communications to which a United States person is a party; ..."

While you are right, your not entirely or completely right on this. The problem is that a United States person is defined in the law and there is a specific exception for corporations and associations who work in concert with foreign powers and agents. This has later been expanded to include terrorists and terrorist groups. Of course corporations and associations are nothing more then groups of people organized under a specific charter so while we would normally consider them as US persons, for the purpose of the law, they are not always US persons.

That distinction does cause some confusion. I believe it's section 101 in which the definitions are. US persons should be defined on the second or third page of the PDF.

My understanding and that of congress is that the law was broken by deliberately and knowingly listening in on communications of thousands of Americans and routing or copying virtually all communications to or through their circuits.

The routing of communications was done through the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which was passed into law in 1995. It basically states that telecoms need to make certain changes to allow wiretaps and other law enforcement needs and provides a reimbursement of costs provision. It came from a time when even if a warrant was needed and issued, many of the facilities and technology made it difficult to put the wire taps in place because they were all different from area to area and provider to provider. The routing changes, while seemingly scary, were actually supported by this law and made it possible for less people to do more taps from fewer locations.

Now, technically, the Bush Administration did violate the law concerning the taps. The problem is they associated them with terrorists and terrorism. Neither of those apply to the warrant exceptions in the FISA laws. However, the orders for the taps pretended they did apply.

I disagree that they were presented with the proper documentation because my understanding is that that documentation is a court order. The executive branch does not have uncontrolled powers except under declaration of war, which only congress can do.

That's what people are attempting to claim but it just isn't true. The law specifically states that the Attorney General can issue an order for up to one year without a court ever becoming involved at all. The entire TSP program was modeled after the warrantless allowances that were present in FISA including the reporting to congress. Something people tend to gloss over is the fact that the House and Senate intelligence comitys as well as respective leaders knew about the program since it's inception and was updated periodically as the FISA laws require. It was limited to the intelligence communities because of the sensitive nature of the program and national security.

Now your right in that the executive branch does not have uncontrolled powers. However, there are inherent powers that have long been accepted to be constitutionally necessary and even a constitutional duty. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which is the law that first required wiretaps, Congress specifically stated under 2511 section 3,

Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the C

Instead of sitting around on Slashdot crying like a bunch of babies who can't open a bottle of milk, put your comments in the official record. Tell the FCC what you think. Maybe it won't have any impact, but at least your message will be out there for someone to potentially see. And who knows, if the public actually cares about this maybe the FCC will actually listen.

There isn't an official docket for this at the FCC yet. It's contained in a rule making proceeding, RM-11361. You can file comments into the official record here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

As usual, try to be civil. But let the FCC know what you think. Complaining on Slashdot won't do you any good.

I'm sorry, but how can someone who pretends to be so intelligent come off so ignorant? I mean you totally ignored what I said in order to grandstand your semi correct point and you have failed to even remotely investigate the situation in law or the details involved. I guess I will have to educate you on a couple of things.

It all democratic countries, there is something called the seperation of powers. Only those branches of government responsible for enacting laws can enact laws. The administrative or executive branch can issue all the commands, orders, instructions and memos it likes, if they are against the law as legislated, then it is a criminal act to obey those commands, orders, instructions and memos but law you are required to disobey them and inform the appropriate branch of the judiciary of the illegal instruction.

We are not talking about democratic countries, we are talking about the United States of America. And in this specific country, intent is a component of a lot of our laws. Killing someone can get you life in prison, 20 years, 10 years 5 years, 6 months or no punishment at all depending on your intent. Intent contains state of mind. Generally, there is premeditated, aggravated, recklessly, knowingly, unknowingly, and a few more that I will leave you and google to discover on your own. Now keep this in mind because the law says, and has always said, that when the government presents the legal authority to receive the information, the telecoms have a complete defense.

Now reread that and pay attention this time because you totally skipped over it the first time in order to blabber your speech. Here are the points, you need to understand, just in case your not native english and the words confuse you. The law already provides immunity in the form of a complete defense. The immunity law that we are concerned with in the article only provides immunity when it would have already applied as a complete defense under the other laws. This is because when the government presents the legal authority to have something but doesn't really have the authority, the telecoms unknowingly participated in the crime. And since this crime is committed on specific instances and not with every action, the telecoms do not know which incident is a crime until after the fact and someone points it out to them.

So the retroactive immunity is nothing more than saving face, of the US government being to embarrassed to publicly prosecute the law breakers, including the NSA, various telecommunications companies and of course the previous US administration. So do you bother to maintain the heat, of verbally bashing those broke the law, of course, you never give up, you shame them worse than the shame that prosecution would bring. You write their history, you keep the memory alive and, you never let them live it down.

Nothing is retroactive about this immunity. You are talking out of your ass due to ignorance and intellectual laziness prompted by political motivation and disdain. It's riddled throughout your comment and is obvious to anyone capable of critical thinking and a little self motivated research.

The law in question has been amended by the patriot act but the original stated the same intent and was in existence since 1968. It provides that if the government presents the legal authority for the tap, the telecom has a complete defense against any criminal or civil action. The telecom is not require to validate any warrant, order or legislative authority the government cites on the request, they are simply obligated by law to comply when it is presented. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 states, 2520 A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 2518(7) of this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this cha

"Often enough, the lease specifies a sole TV provider. If you don't go with them, you have to move."

That's illegal, (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000), FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas. As long as you do not alter the building in any fashion, and place the antenna/Sat dish in your renter controlled area, there isn't a damned thing they can do about it. If they try to evict you, the Landlord-Tenent act reders illegal actions, (or lock-ins), unenforceable.

From my own state:

Just because something is agreed to in a lease does not necessarily mean it is enforceable by the landlord. Some clauses may be illegal, such as a waiver of rights under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, or limitations on the landlord's liability for injury or damages.

Your lease could state that your landlord is allowed to eat as much food of yours as he wanted, rape your daughter, and hold you liable for all property damages even if it isn't your fault. However, those provisions would be illegal, and not enforceable. Legally, you cannot be locked into any utility provider for any service. If you want DishTV, Adelphia Internet, and forego a landline for ATT cellular service, you can do it, and your landlord cannot do anything about it.

Does anyone have actual data or methods to predict this kind of effect on human bodies?

Yes [long pdf]. The FCC cites the specific IEEE and NCRP studies they used to set RF exposure limits. You are correct about the wavelength effect reducing human RF absorption at AM broadcast frequencies, an effect shown in the frequency-dependent FCC exposure limits (page 17 of the pdf file).

General information can be found in this FAQ: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html and in particular in FCC bulletin 56 page 15: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56

The maximum permissible exposure to the general public from a radiator must be lower than the prescribed limits outside of the fence line. Lower frequencies, like AM radio, have a much higher permissible power than the frequencies used in cell phones or WiFi because the biological effect is less.

They fact that they mention interference to intercoms would lead one to think one of those involved may live nearby or near another antenna.

General information can be found in this FAQ: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html and in particular in FCC bulletin 56 page 15: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56

The maximum permissible exposure to the general public from a radiator must be lower than the prescribed limits outside of the fence line. Lower frequencies, like AM radio, have a much higher permissible power than the frequencies used in cell phones or WiFi because the biological effect is less.

They fact that they mention interference to intercoms would lead one to think one of those involved may live nearby or near another antenna.

Comcast wants the FCC to match OCED in defining broadband at 256kbps download. The FCC has previously defined broadband at 200kbps in either direction; in March 2009 they voted to change the lower limit to 768kbps and call the lowest tier "basic broadband". 200kbps to 768kbps is supposed to be called "first generation data". http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9898118-7.html

The rollout of the new definition does not seem to be going well, as recent FCC documents are continuing to use old definitions. From september 2009: http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form477/477inst.pdf

"Please cite to me which Congressional bill grants the FCC authority over telephone lines."

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934:

"AN ACT To provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes."

That's the second line in the Act...wouldn't kill you to look before you speak.

"Please cite to me which Congressional bill grants the FCC authority over telephone lines."

Read the second line.

"AN ACT To provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes."

Was that so hard? Took a whole 5 seconds of googling.

you wrote:

TFA appears to be confusing a statement about the FCC's intention to enforce its publicly-articulate[d] network neutrality principles with a common misconception of what "network neutrality" means that has little, if anything, to do with the principles articulated by the FCC.

Here, I will fix that for you:

TFA appears to be a statement about the FCC's confusing intention to enforce its publicly-articulated network neutrality principles with a common misconception of what "network neutrality" means that has little, if anything, to do with the principles articulated by the FCC.

The confusion is attributable to the FCC, not to the news report, because only that interpretation is consistent with the FCC's actual legal actions.

you wrote:

If one accepts it as a fact without any evidence, sure.

How do you choose which "unsupported" facts to call call into question and which to accept? Are only those inconsistent with your own ideology in doubt? You could raise precisely the same doubt about this. You sound like: "maybe the news is wrong because it does not agree with my government-approved belief system".

What is meant by "network neutrality" is network bias.

What is meant by the FCC with network neutrality is four things:

• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed mandate is a pricing scheme biased in favor of those who consume more.

"Network neutrality" is not a pricing scheme.

If everyone is required to pay the same price regardless of usage, then those who consume little bandwitdth pay a relatively high rate (in dollars/bit) while those who consume much bandwidth pay a relatively low rate.

The FCC's Network Neutrality principles do not require that "everyone is required to pay the same price regardless of usage."

What I'd like to know is on what grounds do they think they can mandate how traffic is managed on ISP networks.

Presumably because Congress, by law, has given the FCC authority to regulate interstate and foreign communication to acheive policy aims set by Congress, including, for instance, direction "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet" and "to promote the continued development of the Internet" and to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans", and also because of the US Supreme Court ruling in Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) that "the Commission remains free to impose special regulatory duties on facilities-based ISPs under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction."

(Additional authority is cited in the FCC's Memorandum Opinion and Order in the Comcast case.)

There are no net neutrality laws.

No, there are net neutrality principles that the FCC has articulated that it believes are appropriate and necessary to acheive the mandates the FCC has been given by Congress with regard to the internet, and which it intends to use to guide its policymaking in that area.

"Principle" means jack squat legally.

True, principles, as such, have no binding force. The FCC Net Neutrality principles, one should note, are essentially a statement of how the Commission intends to acheive the objectives set for it in law, using its existing statutory authority; they aren't asserted to be independent legal authority.

This leaves a huge hole for ISP's to take the FCC to court for what is essentially a privately delivered service.

Anyone can take the FCC to court for anything they want; whether they can win or not is another matter.

What I'd like to know is on what grounds do they think they can mandate how traffic is managed on ISP networks.

Presumably because Congress, by law, has given the FCC authority to regulate interstate and foreign communication to acheive policy aims set by Congress, including, for instance, direction "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet" and "to promote the continued development of the Internet" and to "encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans", and also because of the US Supreme Court ruling in Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) that "the Commission remains free to impose special regulatory duties on facilities-based ISPs under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction."

(Additional authority is cited in the FCC's Memorandum Opinion and Order in the Comcast case.)

There are no net neutrality laws.

No, there are net neutrality principles that the FCC has articulated that it believes are appropriate and necessary to acheive the mandates the FCC has been given by Congress with regard to the internet, and which it intends to use to guide its policymaking in that area.

"Principle" means jack squat legally.

True, principles, as such, have no binding force. The FCC Net Neutrality principles, one should note, are essentially a statement of how the Commission intends to acheive the objectives set for it in law, using its existing statutory authority; they aren't asserted to be independent legal authority.

This leaves a huge hole for ISP's to take the FCC to court for what is essentially a privately delivered service.

Anyone can take the FCC to court for anything they want; whether they can win or not is another matter.

If "Net Neutrality"= "treat traffic the same regardless of source and destination", then GOOD.

If "Net Neutrality"= "treat traffic the same regardless of protocol", then BAD.

The FCC's Network Neutrality Principles are:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Neither of the principles you state are, as such, strictly necessary to meet those principles.

That being said, discrimination by source or destination could in some cases violated the principles (e.g., if an ISP that is also a content provider outright blocks access to traffic trying to reach competing content providers over its network, or blocks all port 80 requests, or all requessts that appear to use the HTTP protocol, going to their non-business subscribers IPs.) Likewise, discrimination by protocol might in some cases violate the protocol (indeed, the last example of discrimination by source or destination is also a discrimination by protocol.) Whether deprioritizing rather than outright blocking traffic using certain ports or protocols would violate the principles depends on the circumstances; presumably, deprioritization that made it impractical to use the protocol for its principal purpose would be problematic.

I'm not quite sure how you get Qualcom CDMA phones to work on a GSM network.

Use something like the Qualcomm MSM7600 chipset in the new HTC Touch Pro 2, which provides a quad-band GSM as well as CDMA radio. Now, carriers preferring lock-in will undoubtedly disable either the GSM or the CDMA functionality of the phone in firmware (or use another Qualcomm single-radio chipset such as the MSM7200), but it is *technically* possible to do, and may become a reality given some clever firmware hacking. Or maybe if you just buy the international, unlocked version.

Could you provide a reference? I tried digging through The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (available here). Looking through the combined 335 page behemoth (Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996), I couldn't find the needle in that haystack.

I've heard different numbers over the years for different parameters. For example, that some phone companies strive for "five 9s" service. That is, 99.999% of the time, when you pick up the phone, you'll get a dialtone. That service level though is still built assuming a given usage model. I've tried googling several different terms but have turned up no reference on the specific point of what the minimum capacity is for a CO relative to the neighborhood it serves, or between the CO and the next level up.

That said, my point still stands. If everyone in your neighborhood picked up their phone and tried to make a call, some non-trivial, non-zero percentage of them would not get through.

GMRS cannot be licensed for businesses in the US. There are some business users who were grandfathered in when the rules changed. GMRS is licensed to individuals for their and their immediate family's use. This could include business activity though. Also you're not licensed a set frequency, rather a collection of frequencies which make up the GMRS service.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=general_mobile

However, you can acquire a license for your business and depending on your needs, even your own frequency.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=industrial_business

There's also MURS which may be used for any purpose and is license free. However it's only five VHF channels and power is limited to 2 watts, also there's a serious lack of certified equipment for this band. Most users are using grandfathered in part-90 certified radios on MURS.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=multi_use

GMRS cannot be licensed for businesses in the US. There are some business users who were grandfathered in when the rules changed. GMRS is licensed to individuals for their and their immediate family's use. This could include business activity though. Also you're not licensed a set frequency, rather a collection of frequencies which make up the GMRS service.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=general_mobile

However, you can acquire a license for your business and depending on your needs, even your own frequency.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=industrial_business

There's also MURS which may be used for any purpose and is license free. However it's only five VHF channels and power is limited to 2 watts, also there's a serious lack of certified equipment for this band. Most users are using grandfathered in part-90 certified radios on MURS.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=multi_use

GMRS cannot be licensed for businesses in the US. There are some business users who were grandfathered in when the rules changed. GMRS is licensed to individuals for their and their immediate family's use. This could include business activity though. Also you're not licensed a set frequency, rather a collection of frequencies which make up the GMRS service.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=general_mobile

However, you can acquire a license for your business and depending on your needs, even your own frequency.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=industrial_business

There's also MURS which may be used for any purpose and is license free. However it's only five VHF channels and power is limited to 2 watts, also there's a serious lack of certified equipment for this band. Most users are using grandfathered in part-90 certified radios on MURS.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=multi_use

http://www.tsa.dhs.gov/press/happenings/amateur_radio_operators.shtm

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/06/24/2/

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=3412

http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/amateur.html

It's almost as if you're speaking out of your ass...

Understandable with a new wonderdrug that cost billions to develop, but it should absolutely not happen with general health care and phone network cartels of all things.

You do realize that it costs billions of dollars just to buy the spectrum licenses for a nationwide wireless network, right? That's before you deploy a single piece of equipment or lease a single tower.

How is that free market working for us?

What free market?

Given the massive amount of regulation, restriction, and subsidization of US telecommunications, pretending that wireless service is a "free market" requires far more suspension of disbelief than I am willing to engage in.

The point is irrelevant though as these things are illegal. United States: illegal to operate, manufacture, import, or offer for sale, including advertising (Communications Act of 1934)[4], with fines of up to $11,000 and imprisonment of up to one year.

No, complain to the FCC. http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm Follow the little wizard and put everything you told us into it. It's not AT&T's job to stop phone calls to your device. You either call the police or the FCC.

I know you are being funny, but it's too bad that the FCC's OTARD doesn't specifically include installation of HAM radio antennas. Seems geared to people needing their fix of satellite TV.

I think the scariest think about all this is the fact that the Lawful Intercept features that the Iranian national telecom and every other 3G operator on the planet have in their equipment areFEDERALLY MANDATED, and the legislators in question are obviously unaware of or blatantly ignoring this fact.

Not that this is news, but the right hand of the US Govt obviously has no f'ing clue what the left hand is doing. They obviously want some good PR by poo-pooing some companies that were doing business with Iran, and Nokia Siemens easily fell to hand. They didn't bother to do their homework, and now Nokia Siemens has a huge mess on their hands as a result of a lot of people with very loud voices being f'ing clueless about telecoms.

NEWS FLASH: IF YOU WANT TO CUT OFF THE FLOW OF MONEY TO THIS OPPRESSIVE ILLEGITIMATE IRANIAN SHAM GOVERNMENT, PUT PRESSURE ON THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BUY THEIR OIL AND GUNS ELSEWHERE OR FACE SANCTIONS

This is really basic stuff, and we've done it before. All their money comes from selling oil and weapons. Anyone messing with anything else is trying to make themselves look good for political reasons.

File a formal grievance with the Federal Communications Commission: CLICK ME. The FCC is the "Ultimate Call Play". Only use it for legitimate grievances. If the cause is just, your complaint could cause a suspension of transmission rights on claimed frequencies. (For all intents and purposes, shutting of ATT for investigation of violating federal anti competitive statutes).

A couple of things here. (BTW, not trying to be an ass, really, but FYI it's "precedent", not "precedence". You are by no means the only one here to make that mistake.)

Well, no. Don't assume I was talking about the legal authority established by a certain case when I was talking about the order of cases presenting the legal authority. I admit the sentence was poorly worded, it should have read something like different precedents (that the supreme court ruled on) in a precedence (simple ordering, based on either importance or sequence). One precedent was before another.

What I think is the most important is the order of the cases where is one was before the other, it could block the previous in this instance. If it was after, it would augment the case/decision you are referring to creating an exception. The Supreme court rules in 2009 that obscene is not protected speech. If the case can be made that the photos were obscene, the protections from the 2002 case can disappear in part if not entirely.

In any case, I made the point myself that the faces of actual children were used, and I agree that it will be interesting.

Yes, I saw that. If I conveyed the idea that you were oblivious to it, it was not my intention. I think it will play little in the case as it unfolds though, the guy in question never used the children for anything, he used their likeness obtained from legitimate sources acting in appropriate ways. The only real connection would be in finding your likeness attached to a potentially embarrassing photo with people not knowing it was a fake.

I'm not aware of this guy distributing the photo. Though it appears that they were found because the state/county police were already investigation a real case of sexual imposition of a minor in which they found 31 sexually explicit and altered photograph's of three (3) juvenile females. Of those, it appears all were real photos except the three in question. It took quite a bit of searching before I discovered that. I wish the original story was more accurate with how and why the police were involved in the first place.

But I would like to bring up a fine but important point: the issue here is "obscenity", not "indecency".

Indecent material can cross the line into obscene material. That's the reason I used the wording in the way I did. Here is a summery of the Supreme Courts test to indicate obscene material that I lifted from the FCC's website.

"What makes material "obscene?" Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography."

Please note that if the material is lacking any of the three requirements, it's just indecent and objectionable material. I will explain where the 28 year old young looking girlfriend fits in when we look at the FCC's statement on the differences between obscene and indecent. As far as I know, these representations are accurate across different applications and aren't limited to the FCC's application.

Something like

A couple of things here. (BTW, not trying to be an ass, really, but FYI it's "precedent", not "precedence". You are by no means the only one here to make that mistake.)

Well, no. Don't assume I was talking about the legal authority established by a certain case when I was talking about the order of cases presenting the legal authority. I admit the sentence was poorly worded, it should have read something like different precedents (that the supreme court ruled on) in a precedence (simple ordering, based on either importance or sequence). One precedent was before another.

What I think is the most important is the order of the cases where is one was before the other, it could block the previous in this instance. If it was after, it would augment the case/decision you are referring to creating an exception. The Supreme court rules in 2009 that obscene is not protected speech. If the case can be made that the photos were obscene, the protections from the 2002 case can disappear in part if not entirely.

In any case, I made the point myself that the faces of actual children were used, and I agree that it will be interesting.

Yes, I saw that. If I conveyed the idea that you were oblivious to it, it was not my intention. I think it will play little in the case as it unfolds though, the guy in question never used the children for anything, he used their likeness obtained from legitimate sources acting in appropriate ways. The only real connection would be in finding your likeness attached to a potentially embarrassing photo with people not knowing it was a fake.

I'm not aware of this guy distributing the photo. Though it appears that they were found because the state/county police were already investigation a real case of sexual imposition of a minor in which they found 31 sexually explicit and altered photograph's of three (3) juvenile females. Of those, it appears all were real photos except the three in question. It took quite a bit of searching before I discovered that. I wish the original story was more accurate with how and why the police were involved in the first place.

But I would like to bring up a fine but important point: the issue here is "obscenity", not "indecency".

Indecent material can cross the line into obscene material. That's the reason I used the wording in the way I did. Here is a summery of the Supreme Courts test to indicate obscene material that I lifted from the FCC's website.

"What makes material "obscene?" Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography."

Please note that if the material is lacking any of the three requirements, it's just indecent and objectionable material. I will explain where the 28 year old young looking girlfriend fits in when we look at the FCC's statement on the differences between obscene and indecent. As far as I know, these representations are accurate across different applications and aren't limited to the FCC's application.

Something like

Yes, though that's rather specific to the financial industry. The securities market is more (though not nearly enough, apparently) heavily regulated than commerce at large.

This discussion is about payola. And yes, all broadcast stations are forbidden from accepting payola without disclosing it:

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

The FCC obviously regulates the airwaves, so this wouldn't apply to newspapers, but it does apply to all broadcast stations. There might be some similar rule enforced by the FTC in regard to newspapers, I'm not sure.

Despite the FCC's claim about automated dialers calling wireless phones, they will just send you a letter that they didn't find any infractions and cite a 1934 communications act. I received that letter (yesterday) when I reported a company using an automated dialer and recorded message inform me that all of my credit cards were in danger.

I think the only reason this one had any action was because it had received national notice when a call came through to a senator, interrupting the water boarding hearings in Congress last month. The national news covered it (briefly), and the FCC was questioned about it.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs. Here's why I do it: 1) I like having a job. 2) Part of my job is making sure we comply with CIPA http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html 3) CIPA says we have to filter "obscene pictures" You, Janet Jackson and I may think breasts are not obscene, but I know there are people who do.

Make sure you rescanned the box after yesterday. TV stations were switching from their temporary ATSC frequencies (typically UHF) to their permanent frequencies (which may or may not be the same) throughout the day on Saturday. If it doesn't fix it, check http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/maps/ and see if the channels are still available in your area (weak signals will probably will not be received, unless you have a badass antenna)...

UPDATE: There's a letter in WWED's correspondence file that says they can't ramp up due to Title 47, Part 73.525 - Channel 6 protection.

UPDATE: There's a letter in WWED's correspondence file that says they can't ramp up due to Title 47, Part 73.525 - Channel 6 protection.

UPDATE: There's a letter in WWED's correspondence file that says they can't ramp up due to Title 47, Part 73.525 - Channel 6 protection.

What broadcast range limitations do you speak of? According to the FCC ATSC should surpass NTSC's coverage in distance: http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/
Now there are issues with any stations broadcasting below channel 7 in the VHF band, but FCC is allowing those stations to kick up the output power quite a bit to compensate for that.

Power harvesting from phone lines is actually perfectly doable(after all, all classic corded phones were powered directly by the telephone system). If you just go about it naively, the FCC can smack you down and/or your phone company can give you the "Your residence's ringer equivalence number is outrageous, goodbye" speech; but there are rather more polite methods.

Based on the normal timeframe of the wireless industry: the porting process for a wireless-to-wireless transfer should be completed within 2 and a half hours from the time the porting request is made of the old carrier by the new carrier.

See here.

If a carrier imposes an unreasonable (ridiculously long) timeframe such as 30, 60, or 90 days, they may incur the wrath of the FCC, e.g. regulatory action may result.

No, they'll mess with you.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/

As a follow up, go to the FCC here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-279991A1.pdf

And look at the chart on page 41.

"Appropriations" is from Federal Funding
"Regulatory Fees" is from People Who Actually Use The System (TM).

And I correct myself. It was during the CLINTON administration that the ball really got rolling with making the FCC self-sufficient. Reagan started it, but it was actually put into practice under the CLINTON administration.

Let me say that again:

CLINTON.

--
BMO

Actually a lot of them *do* provide 911 services. Besides VoIP providers recently being granted interconnection rights for PSAP access, which solved many of the initial problems, basic 911 access is now required on consumer VoIP lines and any differences from wireline 911 must be disclosed:
        http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html

In metro Atlanta he's likely to have full access to an appropriate PSAP, so his only real limitation is that they will get his home address rather than his current location. That may be annoying if you're not in a position to communicate your location, but it seemed to be good enough for cell phones for several decades -- it's only recently that any mobile voice service provides detailed, up-to-date location information for emergency calls. And depending on the provider and capabilities of the netbook it may even be possible to provide location updates on a regular basis to ensure that his current location *is* transmitted to the PSAP.

The FCC just doesn't barge into people's houses in a manner suggested by TFA. They don't have a fleet of yellow trucks like in "Pump Up The Volume."

There is a very, very long history of FCC enforcement actions for things like CB operators using amplifiers, businesses using amateur radios for communications, amateurs abusing repeaters, etc.

Here's a smattering of recent ones.

Anybody who is so egregious as to actually come to the notice of the FCC generally has gotten to the point where "inspecting" their house wouldn't be necessary - there would already be ample evidence of the problem available simply by monitoring them from a distance.

Such is the nature of RF - you don't have to actually be inside the premises to detect it.

It's often not the FCC that visits folks anyway. This is a cute story about someone causing unintentional interference. In this case, it wasn't the FCC that got to the bottom of it, it was a bunch of hams.

You really have to keep pissing off the FCC to get more than strongly worded letter.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Headlines.html

I'll just leave this here.
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt