Slashdot Mirror

Actually, they are required to serve the public interest to some extent or another, at least in the U.S. They're obligated to preempt regular programming for emergency broadcasts, for example, and the FCC mandates certain standards for educational and informational programming:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html#TV

I think, however, that if you have a problem with them not fulfilling these roles, it's on you to complain about it, same as obscenity complaints. From time to time I've seen different local broadcasters put up announcements that the station's license is up for renewal at some date in the future and that if you want to comment on their application to the FCC or see their records about educational and informational programming, you can stop by their offices to do so.

"If you get one of these types of calls, just go Here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm and fill out the form. In a week or two you get the print copy mailed to you of your filing."

Wrong. In a week or two you get a print copy of the notice saying there isn't enough information in your complaint. These companies are good at not giving you the information you need to make the complaint. The phone companies won't give you the real number (*57 call trace) unless there's a police report involved. Unless you get lucky and get connected to an inexperienced rep you can weasel some information out of, your complaint will be rejected as insufficient. I've had over a dozen ignored.

If you get one of these types of calls, just go Here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm and fill out the form.
 
And Canadians can go here:

https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/plt-cmp-eng

So the Do Not Call list became "Cheap list of verified numbers for people who can give you money but whose government can't arrest you."

I always figured it like this-- the Do Not Call list has certain exceptions-- political calls (of course), charities, and companies with whom you've done business (e.g., even though you cancel AT&T, they continue with the "please switch back" calls), non-profits, etc. There may be even more exceptions (like local businesses within 50 miles of your home, etc.) for your state's local DNC list.

In other words, the way I see it, the Do Not Call list is a Call List for the exceptions. I don't want ANY of them- politicians or nonprofits included- calling me. I'd just prefer to stay unlisted and not have my # show up anywhere. This works pretty well except for the random-number generated robocalls who coudn't give a shit what your # is.

Also, if it gets REALLY annoying, one might consider using a call router to intelligently route unknown callers through a phone tree or directly to voice mail.

W

If you get one of these types of calls, just go Here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm and fill out the form. In a week or two you get the print copy mailed to you of your filing.

Im glad they are acting on these @holes.

They do select on the best available data. For example, this selection had 19 billion pieces of data submitted.

There's also a lot of restrictions on equipment and antennas. In fact, just about any use of an antenna which didn't come with the unit can cause you to be in violation of the FCC rules.

These devices operate under part 15 of the FCC's rules. You can find a copy here: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/

Or you can also acquire them from the Federal Register. 47 CFR Part 15.

Why electronics are banned on planes:

Unlike the conspiracy theory that "they want you to pay for Airphone services", electronics are banned for two reasons:

(1) For cell phones, a cell phone in a plane is "seen" by far too many cells and generally confuses the cell network. This is the same reason that they were relatively useless for locating the missing hikers, in recent history, on Mount Hood, which has the same altitude-based issue.

(2) For all electronics, the (now very old, but not yet replaced in all US airports/aircraft) ILS/LOC systems are oversensitive to electronic interference, which is why you are required to shut portable electronics off on takeoff and landing, when an emergency might require their use(*).

[*] ILS/LOC was supposed to be replaced by MLS, but with the advent of GPS and the hopes that it could be used instead, few MLS systems were deployed in the US, and most that were have been shut down. Instead, the GPS-based WAAS is being deployed instead, which broadcasts differential corrections for the intentional GPS "wobble" that was intended to prevent GPS being used by an adversary for targeting purposes (meaning it's still usable for that, if you include WAAS). Fears about the ability of the US to "turn off" GPS signals on a theatre-basis have led to continued deployment of MLS in Europe.

See also:

        http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html
        http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Landing_System
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System

-- Terry

It's a known fact that Bruce Parens is a ham. He's obviously just trying to deflect the blame elsewhere.

Bluetooth and 802.11 (wifi) both use 2.4 GHz spectrum and interfere with one another. Some routers have "bluetooth coexistence mode" to weave 802.11 transmissions into time slots that it doesn't expect nearby bluetooth devices to use but it's better to just avoid bluetooth for a mouse imo. The FCC filing for my Logitech MX700 shows that it uses 27 MHz https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/tcb/GetTcb731Report.do?applicationId=463065&fcc_id='JNZ211596'

Ahh, you hit it first try. :) I did like your other response though. :)

Most patrol cars that I've seen have not just a trunked radio, but they also have an onboard computer with a wireless network card. The one I had a chance to have a good look at years ago wasn't your regular cell network card. It used their own network on a frequency I hadn't seen used for anything else. Ahhh, your signal.

Have a good look at the back of a patrol car next time you're stopped behind one in traffic. They usually have several antennas.

So, isolate the frequencies used by your local law enforcement. More than likely the voice/trunk radio traffic will be bursty (only on when they're transmitting), but the data traffic will be constant. My guess would be, you'd be able to hear it even when they're out of range. I would suspect, just like cell phones, they broadcast trying to reconnect to the tower, even when the tower can't hear them.

Ok, I just went looking. Florida uses a SLERS system, for inter-departmental communication, so any agency can respond to any area in Florida and be able to communicate with each other. It works on an "Encrypted digital 800Mhz" frequency.

Apparently, DHS has gotten the FCC to reserve the 800Mhz band for "public safety". I was just skimming to see what parts of the band they're using. It appears there are 4 very definite ranges. I believe it's 2 for transmit from the towers, and two for transmit from the mobile units. I could be wrong though, and one pair could be car to base, and one pair for the microwave relays. In any case, if you can isolate the frequencies and warn when something is close, then you'd be notified. Like, have a HAM radio scanner with that frequency range locked in, and your squelch set to only hear things close by (say 1 mile). Any time a patrol got within 1 mile, you'd hear the encrypted traffic.

If you got really fancy with it, it would be an excellent tracking system. Two diverse antennas would give you two possible locations. If you're using omnidirectional antennas, you'll just know when one gets close, and have a vague idea of about where they are. It would be where the blobs intersect, and you can base distance on received signal strength. It would give you two most likely points, and a decent size area of potential location (where the circles cross at that transmit power)

With sweeping antennas, you could get two vectors. Now from each antenna, you could get a rough idea of distance, and the direction they're at. A car based one wouldn't be ideal, there isn't enough distance to put them off of. With two antennas, even 20 feet apart (assuming a land yacht), and a 4 degree beam width antenna, that still leaves plenty of room for error. If you could have three antennas at a good fixed distance (like say 0.5 miles apart), with a full sweep at 1 second, you'd get a good idea of where they are. the problem there then becomes altitude. You need your antennas to be fairly high to avoid physical obstacles (houses, trees, the neighbors SUV parked in front of your antenna), which means your beam width needs to be wider. Also, if you are in a hilly area, or want to pick up LEO aircraft (helicopters come to mind), looking at the ground at a distance doesn't work well. If you're a little too high, with a good shot at the distance, you may see them at a mile, but wouldn't know if they pulled up in front of your house, or 3 blocks over raiding your neighbors place growing pot (or a courtesy call. It happens).

Even with frequency hopping, which I'm sure they use, if you picked up a 3 second burst of traffic on a single frequency, you'd be able to hear that on all receiving points, and identify the location, direction o

It's not really that hard; for example: just fill out the form http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

The proceeding is 09-51
Document type is already COMMENT

either
  -upload a file and convert to PDF if necessary
  -type a comment directly on the form

make sure to address specific statutory sections where applicable (when giving comments in regard to specific laws for example) and give your comment some amount of organization at least similar to the notice of inquiry (especially if it is long)

You can read the Word or PDF version of the FCC's National Broadband Plan - request for public comment here: http://www.fcc.gov/ I think many of you should take the time. I read 1/3 of it today. Some of their questions they are requesting comments on are pretty politically charged depending on which side of this fence you are on. The section on how best to promote video support on the internet --- The Cable Companies like Comcast, Time Warner etc are doing everything they can to squash that by putting CAPs on monthly bandwidth usage... which pretty much guarantees to stifle Cable's captured market for Movies/TV. Then there are what seem to be simple questions but if you think about them... they are not. How much bandwidth is required to have "adequate" Broadband --- most of us would say unlimited but then that's probably not practical to implement so what is a good answer. The FCC's document is well written. It requests input by ANYONE, just submit in Word or PDF format. They are asking for examples of what works in other countries and what doesn't. They are asking for answers to questions about WiMAX, Cable, DSL etc. Take some time and comment... or only the large corporations will and you'll get what get.

Commenting seems like a rather complicated (or rather tedious) process.

All filings related to this Notice of Inquiry should refer to GN Docket No. 09-51

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov./ Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for
submitting comments.

 ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for GN Docket No. 09-51. In
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic
comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to
ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, âoeget form.â A
sample form and directions will be sent in response

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each
filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier,
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the
Commissionâ(TM)s Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. ...

AT&T has tried this method in the past and been slapped down by the FCC in apparently similar cases. Apparently the new game is to call it criminal fraud instead of a civil fraud were the FCC has repeatedly said no. See AudioText International, Ltd. v. AT&T

http://www.fcc.gov/cib/consumerfacts/universalservice.html

I did not say the FAA certified the devices. I said they certified the planes. As in, 'this configuration of aircraft, with this complement of avionics, does not show any problems with the RF patterns generated by 200 laptops with wifi in the passenger compartment'. Which is completely different from 'this wifi laptop does not cause any aircraft problems'. And both are different than saying the aircraft does not show any problems with any RF generating devices at all.

You are also wrong about the FCC.

no cell phones on planes is an FCC mandate, not an FAA mandate:

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

"Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft. This ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground. "

This information could theoretically come from the account information, but is not done this way in practice. Many consumers use different billing addresses from the primary location where they use their VoIP. There are now two common methods for populating ALI info.

Over the top VoIP providers, such as Vonage, have a big notice about E-911 issues with their service, and make each customer populate their own ALI information in their online account. This is somewhat risky, since these VoIP service tend to be nomadic-I can use my Vonage ATA to connect to any broadband connection, and if I change my location, it is up to me to update my ALI status. (There are horror stories of people setting up at a hotel, having a heart attack, calling 911, and having the ambulance show up at their house).

Providers of integrated VoIP, such as Comcast, have developed ways to use the IP address associated with the VoIP call to lookup the physical address of the caller. This works because Comcast is also providing the underlying broadband connection, which is tied to a particular physical location.

The FCC discussed these complications in a 2005 Order which required providers like Vonage to take extra steps to notify customers about the 911 risks, and to collect accurate ALI information.

For years now, since the FCC said CPNI was opt out, EVERY phone company (mobile and landline) could sell/trade ALL your information. Name, address, billing info, numbers you call, time you call them, how often you call them, essentially every single thing the phone company knows about you. The kinda stuff that normally requires a warrant, they can just give it away. The name for that info is CPNI (customer proprietary network information).

This was changed in 2002, because of a court case (previously it was opt in only). The FCC decided rather than fight it, they would just switch to opt out.
(Yeah there are a few restrictions, like they have to be a telecommunications related company... hmm if I sell cell phone batteries, I must be telecommunications related, right?)

Everyone should have already opted out years ago to prevent this kinda thing, if they were paying attention. No one did, so this kinda thing wasn't stopped.
If you haven't already you should call up every phone company you use and ask them not to share CPNI.

Get the Facts (google up CPNI, and here's a place to start)
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/phoneaboutyou.html

"1) Opt-Out Your company sends you a notice saying it will consider you to have given your approval to use your customer information for marketing unless you tell it not to do so (usually within 30 days.)"
"How to Help Prevent Unauthorized Disclosure of Your Customer Information"

"Read your telephone bill and any other notices you receive from your company carefully. Determine if your company is seeking opt-in or opt-out permission to use or share your customer information for marketing."

Thats whats been going on here.

who is going to pay for those DSL upgrades?

from the FCC's website:

Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation's policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the "Federal Universal Service Fee" or "Universal Connectivity Fee."

could high-speed internet access someday be interpreted to be a "vital link...to government services?" maybe.

there are options for us rural dwellers. there's satellite, which is somewhat expensive and not very fast. there's also the cellular network. an aircard in combination with a wireless router works well, if you can get a signal at your house. some companies offer wireless broadband over the 5.8 spectrum, but you more-or-less need line-of-site to the tower for that. another possibility is broadband-over-powerlines, but i think they suffer from the same fate as dsl, requiring the user be within a certain distance of their "box."

any way you slice it, rural customers will be out of luck for some time to come.

I think it's a fine idea. the spectrum is public land. You rent it you don't give it away.

I thought the spectrum auction was for licenses with a term of no more than 10 years. They can be renewed, but the conditions required for renewal will be expensive to meet -- but probably less than what the new Obama taxes will cost.

And when it comes to leasing land and drilling, exactly what is your expertise in this area? How many acres of land have you leased? How much prospecting have you done?

Why is it the responsibility of the provider to monitor how much you use your cell phone?

This is not about responsibility. It's about the phone company's self-interest. It is in the self-interest of the phone company to make it impossible for people to inadvertently rack up big bills that they cannot possibly pay.

If today I incur the expenses to provide you a service, and then bill you for it at the end of the month, what I'm doing is in an important regard equivalent to extending you short-term credit. It is absolutely in my interest to only extend such implicit credit when I can be reasonably sure I will be paid. Therefore, I should not allow people to rack up $28,000 bills unless I am reasonably sure that they will indeed pay them up.

There are several problems in this one specific case:

1. Third-party billing: the phone company is required to bill the customer for charges assessed by a third party, over whom they have hardly any control. This is broken at many levels, not least of which is the legal level. (Not just when it comes to roaming, but also cramming.)
2. The devices make it way too easy for the customer to inadvertently rack up enormous, unintended charges. The UI cue in nearly all phones is the network name display, which is just too subtle for most people.

   A superior system would require the phone to query the current network for its billing rates, to be aware of the user's usual rates, and intelligently notify the user before they attempt to place calls that would incur in higher than normal charges. The notification should spell out as clearly and concretely as possible how large the charges could be--e.g., "A 10 minute phone call at this rate would cost $1,234.56," or "displaying a typical newspaper web page would cost $5 at this rate."

Please allow me to stress the following point again: this is all in the interest of the provider.

Similarly, a long distance company tried to forcibly move me to their Long Distance service. Even going so far as to saying I had approved in on the phone (they couldn't produce the recording when I demanded it).

That's called slamming and the FCC takes a dim view of it.

Falcon

Digital TV stations aren't broadcasting at full power until their respective analog stations go offline.
http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/report2.html has a list of all the coverage areas
And I wasn't aware you could get NYC signals from 65 miles away (I'm in southeastern PA, so I might try now. I've only got a hill, my neighbors, and half the state of New Jersey between me and the Empire State Building)

Who told you that? As the AC mentioned, The FCC has rather extensively said 'you can'. HOAs and such can't tell you no.

Do you own or rent? Apartment or house?

Maybe this will help?

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

For me, the only option is to install it on the roof of the apartment building, as our patio faces away from the towers.

Outside of the UK, there are things called apartments, and "home owners association" which prohibits having such things visible to the outside world.

In the US, there's this thing called the "OTARD", which is basically a case of a governmental agency (the FCC) telling a bunch of quasi-governmental petty fascists (HOAs) to stay the fuck out of their territory. The OTARD says that if you need an outdoor antenna, homeowner's associations can't prevent you from getting one. They can't even delay you or try to make it hard through bureaucratic BS (the FCC is obviously well-acquainted with red tape).

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

If you don't own or control a spot to mount the antenna, you still may be SOL, but if you own your home, the OTARD lets you tell an HOA to STFU.

First off, "reasonable network management practices" was not Comcast's language. It was the FCC's in their 2005 Internet Policy Statement. The Internet Policy Statement, by the way, is NOT a bad thing, and is very pro-"net neutrality" - it's just not really enforceable at this point because it's just a "policy statement" and not a rule. Second, net neutrality language was put into section 6002 of the version of the house bill (which, from what I understand from the context of the article, is what Feinstein was looking to amend). Section 6002 would codify (that's legalese for "make into law") the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, and the relevant section of 6002 basically says "If you're using government funds to expand broadband internet access to underserved areas, you can't engage in discriminatory network management practices, and you have to abide by the principles in the FCC's Internet Policy Statement." Go to gpoaccess.gov, search for 111 hr 1. Politics ain't pretty, but it ain't impossible to understand either, if people would stop misreporting things.

This is the FCC's Internet Policy Statement from 2005.

It's 3 pages, so it's not like I'm saying "Go read the FCC's order distributing Adelphia's assets between Comcast and Time Warner." Or really, anything the FCC puts out that isn't a consent decree or a policy statement. Who has time to read 180 pages anyway (other than a lawyer...)? But as a shortcut, here's the big stuff in those 3 pages for the purposes of this post:

The four principles in paragraph 4 include "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." Two of the remaining three principles reference law enforcement and legality. The fourth includes the phrase "consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers," which I would say goes to the heart of the *real* net neutrality debate, since it would also preclude access tiering that would give content providers faster service based on how much $$ they put down, and that in turn would harm competition between content providers.

Second sentence in footnote 15 of the Internet Policy Statement: "The principles we adopt are subject to reasonable network management."

Sorry guys, Feinstein's not the enemy here. The reason that amendment wouldn't fly isn't because it's OMG STRICT. It's because it's completely redundant of what is already IN the language of the bill. Those things are illegal, therefore if you brought a claim to the FCC because Comcast cut off your service, even if the FCC followed its Internet Policy Statement to the letter (REMINDER: That policy statement what the telecom section of the stimulus bill would implement as federal law), it already wouldn't protect you from "discrimination" by your broadband provider when you download/upload 25 gigs of copyrighted content over the course of a week. If anything, Feinstein's language would be lighter, because it's only applying "reasonable network management" language to illegal activity. The Internet policy statement applies "reasonable network management" discretion to ALL activity.

Sorry, I've written the better part of 50 pages on this exact topic as it is, so you guys are getting off light if I'm just saying THIS much about it.

might land them in dog shit land, but it's not illegal in the US. IE I look at the company web page all the time to match a photo with a persons name, if you carry something that willingly broadcasts your name and photo that's your business, all these guys did was let you know thats what your doing carrying a passport that is not held securely closed, or wrapped in a conductor.
    The FCC is the only one allowed to impose laws against wireless communications (in US), and outside the cellular bands "as long as the communication is not divulged or does not `benefit' the interceptor."

So collect all the names photos, etc of everyone you can, business cards, etc. As long as you don't start using those in a criminal manner, your good.

From FCC (emphasis added):

Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming?

In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

The definition of "obscene" from the same FCC page:

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.

So basically, something on a subscription service must: 1) make the average soccer mom get hot, 2) show hardcore porn or is so hateful that it makes everyone uncomfortable, 3) exist only to be offensive...then the commish goes after them.

Try reading the FCC's definitions of indecency, obscenity and profanity. Mostly the revolve around the vague concepts of 'community standards' and what an 'average person would find patently offensive'.

IOW, if they get enough complaints, they pretty much have to act.

Looking at the FCC TV database, it seems Houston has or will have a number of DTV stations operating at effective power at or near a million Watts, and with pretty fair effective antenna height (500 meters or so). Coverage looks pretty good compared to what many see in more mountainous areas.

Coverage also depends much on terrain. You can get a pretty good idea what to expect from the tvfool coverage maps which take terrain into account. If you're out in the blue it takes more work...

I looked at a couple of the Houston signals and its seems they're generally really strong out to about 50 miles.
You didn't say what kind of installation you have at 60 miles. A decent roof-mounted antenna with a preamp at the antenna (remotely powered) and modern low-loss coax cable will probably work well.
It is important that the antenna be properly aimed. I've had good results with the mast-mounted preamp Radio Shack sells (about $60, about double what I paid for a medium sized antenna).
Increasing antenna height can help, especially when there is clutter nearby.
Some indoor preamps I've tried made matters worse instead of better. (most were around $20). They had both poor gain and were more prone to overload problems. The Radio Shack outdoor preamp has a gain adjustment on the indoor power supply. It is easiest to check reception on analog signals while adjusting the gain. If there is an overload problem from strong signals nearby, the best reception will be below the maximum gain setting. Equipment is more prone to signal overload near transmitters and when there are many signals nearby. Interference is far easier to spot on the analog signals.

Here is a link to the final resting places of channels. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

Your landlord is obligated to allow you to install your own antennae for the purpose of recieving television signals. See Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule for more information.

The FCC has left it up to the stations to inform their viewers of the switch. They are allowed to still broadcast for up to 30 days over analog, strictly with emergency information and information related to DTV transition. Their is no requirement for stations to do this(at least in general, there may be more specific cases where stations are required to do this)

From January 15 FCC release

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-287915A1.pdf

This action is designed to aid consumers who are not able to receive digital signals after the DTV transition on February 17, 2009, to provide them with access to emergency information. This action is also intended to help consumers understand the steps they need to take in order to restore their television service.

The FCC Order lists 826 stations that are eligible to broadcast emergency and transition information in analog after the statutory digital transition on February 17, 2009. Stationsâ(TM) participation is voluntary, but the Order encourages stations to participate by adopting streamlined procedures and maximum flexibility for participating broadcasters.

The digital signal I get is a little flaky but they are supposed to boost the signal after the switch.

they? Changes in digital facilities at the cut-over date vary on a case by case basis.

There are going to be fewer channels available for tv after the switch. We'll be using 2 through 51, except there is no channel 37 (that's kept silent for radio astronomy).
Some stations will use the same digital facilities after the switch, so those probably won't improve.
Some of the digital signals already on are using channels above 51 and will move. Due to interference issues, some digital signals are temporarily using lower power and/or a different channel. Those stations will likely have a change in signal coverage (mostly for the better) when the transition is complete.
Some stations that are digital on UHF now will move to VHF channels (perhaps their former analog channel) when the analog signal is shut down. Although that may mean a better signal for some viewers, those who installed a UHF-specific antenna for DTV may find their antenna marginal.
UHF antennas still pick up some VHF signal, more so with channels 7-13 than 2-6, but one would have to be in a pretty strong signal area for that to work.
Some stations will be buying antennas or other equipment from other stations as channel-switches occur (transmitting antennas are generally made for a specific channel or narrow range of them)
Rescheduling antenna and general engineering work will be a headache at the switch if the date changes.

Whatever you're using now, plan on using the channel-scan function to relocate stations that have moved after the change. In some places there may be new channels coming on the air (some are low power) scanning periodically to see what's out there isn't a bad idea.

You can see what's licensed or has construction permits for the various types of tv stations using the FCC TV database.

You can get an idea of relative signal coverage as well as what's in your area at tvfool.com. Seeing different colors for various relative signal levels in a stations' coverage is very helpful in determining what kind of antenna you might need to get a particular station.
Using a good outdoor antenna, a preamp at the antenna, and modern low loss coax cable makes a huge difference for weak signals.

Some areas have analog low-power tv or translator (rebroadcast on shifted channel) stations that will continue to operate after the switch. If you're using a DTV converter for an analog tv you'll need a converter with a "pass-through" feature to allow those signals to bypass the converter and still get to the tv. (may require turning converter off for pass-through, much like behavior with old VCRs when not using VCR tuner)

As an add on to the sibling post, you might see the fcc flier: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.pdf

I'm not sure which are exempt from offering the basic service tier (it's not clear); I thought it was required by law.

In theory, DirecTV offers international basic for $10/mo, which is your locals plus a short list of non-english channels. Not sure what the requirements are to get hooked up with that, but if all you need are the locals it might work.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258164A1.pdf (warning pdf - it was either this or a word .doc)

"Telemarketing to cell phone numbers has always been illegal in most cases and will
continue to be so."

"FCC regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone
numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers are
barred from calling consumers on their cell phones without their consent."

Mostly the FCC maps if you can believe the FCC. Right now only some stations are on full power digital. Some are still using their big antenna for analog, with a side mount one for digital. The same goes for the amplifiers.

Some stations have to keep their digital power down right now top avoid interfering with existing alanog transmission that will be shut off.

The stations that appear to be full power digital now come in stronger that stations in another city that is 40 miles closer to me. Their analog signals are now too week for me to get so I have to believe they are on full power digital.

It is worthwhile. For this one reason. Gigawatts.

Using data from the FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html I calculated the sum total effective radiated power of all TV stations in the US.

Total for ATV: 3.6 GW
Total for DTV: 1.5 GW

Savings before you factor in transmitter efficiencies: 2.1 GW.

I have no idea what the real efficiency of a TV transmitter is, but if it were 80% input to ERP you get about 4.5 GW of energy used to keep running ATV.

Over the 115 day extension that's 12.3 Terawatt-hours.

It's unfortunate that the US has little to no consumer protection, here in Australia there's the TIO (www.tio.gov.au) or the state based Consumer Affairs/Department of Fair Trading that deals with these issues. At the mere mention of these bodies the carriers quickly release you from contract, or prepare for a massive legal battle without any cost to you.

www.fcc.gov and www.ftc.gov, respectively.

It's unfortunate that the US has little to no consumer protection, here in Australia there's the TIO (www.tio.gov.au) or the state based Consumer Affairs/Department of Fair Trading that deals with these issues. At the mere mention of these bodies the carriers quickly release you from contract, or prepare for a massive legal battle without any cost to you.

www.fcc.gov and www.ftc.gov, respectively.

Thank you for that information!

I found the FCC's Electronic Consumer Complaint site and I guess we will see how it goes.

Again, thank you (at least now there is some hope) (!)

The dishes are allowed because federal law says that they have to be:

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

Not true. There are many ways to easily prevent installation of dishes, etc. for example...

From the FCC website you linked to:

The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.

There are a whole slew of ways you can be prevented from installing a dish or other antenna without violating the FCC rules.
Basically, if the property owner is clever, you might be restricted to a tripod mounted dish.

Restrictions on the installation of DirectTV and other satellite dishes are explicitly preempted by FCC regulation in the US.

The dishes are allowed because federal law says that they have to be:

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

Given time and lower installation costs, I would imagine that similar legislation will be applied to solar cells.

> The FCC is selling a big chunk of the 700MHz UHF spectrum,
> right? So will some of my channels move?

See http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/ and select your city for a list of channels and coverage maps.

Americans living near the Canadian border might be interested in http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/DTV_PLAN_Dec08-e.pdf/$file/DTV_PLAN_Dec08-e.pdf (PDF document). It lists Canadian Analog/Transitional/Final frequencies. The Canadian analogue shutdown is scheduled for August 31, 2011

there seemed to be this "emergency broadcast system" a ways back. Wonder if it still works.

The Emergency Alert System has superseded the EBS, and it remains functional in the world of DTV. Ironically though, much of the system depends on analog broadcast radio stations to get messages to television stations. There is work underway to provide emergency messaging by XML.

Whoa! I was just kidding dude! Chill out!

LOL, I kind of figured that.

Its just that I have seen too many people defending (making excuses 200Kbps is broadband, yea right, for) ISPs, telcos on issues such as bandwidth CAPs (Comcast, Frontier, 5 GB cap, Time Warner), Traffic shaping (Comcast, Time Warner), censoring TCP/IP traffic(Sprint did years ago); not increasing their bandwidth by building out their networks (every current US telco and ISP) as they have promised; charge per message, per anything rather than just providing us the bandwidth we are paying for.

While I agree they should NOT have offered unlimited bandwidth, they did (not anymore - so they can be taught) AND

If they say that I have access to 10MB down and 4 MB up, than why am I only getting 2 - 4MB down and 700Kpbs up ...supposedly I am paying for more.

It's not the size of the cap, its the fact of a CAP!

Basically the telcos, ISPs, our politicians (both parties) have been playing us for fools for way too long AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT. (We need to hold them accountable with our money and our votes)

I just feel a need to educate enough people, hoping that they will get as fed up with the status quo and hopefully insist on what we all deserve...better service, more bandwidth and honest representation.

I hope that if enough us wake up to the truth of the situation (which requires cutting through the lies people use to defend these entities), one company will act. If one company acts (my hopes are that a new player will take advantage of Googles new trans ocean cables and offer here in the US what they have in Japan. (Japan-envy when it comes to Internet connectivity and respect of other people.)

The first company to offer 100 Mbps / 100 Mbps at what I am paying now for 4 Mpbs / 700Kbps will find me to be a loyal customer for life. And with less than 40% of the high speed interent marketplace, they would be able to generate multiple billions in profits.

That same company would be in a position to offer 1 Gbps / 1 Gbps as they are now in Japan also.

Eventually someone will; that company will put every existing telco and ISP to shame. (These customer no service entities should be ashamed.) My hope is at that time every other telco will be hurt so bad that either they finally invest in their infrastructures, or if they continue to refuse to do the right thing, that they be put out of business via normal market practices.

Though some companies are starting to wake up to the reality they have created (customer no service) and starting to do things...here is one attempt by Comcast, (7 employees in Philadelphia), its a start, but will they implement this company wide...that combined with whole hearted efforts to build out fiber and actually start providing TRUE customer service and they might stand a chance. Note: If a company is not seriously interested in changing their ways, they should NOT only TRY. This is NOT an area to try, this is an AREA THEY MUST DO! Anything less than 100% commitment will only hurt them!

Personally once I switch to a new provider with that amount of bandwidth, I will NEVER look back. If enough other people do likewise, the existing oligopolies will falter and suffer.

Might be worth putting into my will that any family member that uses any of the other ISPs or telcos will be dis-inherited just to drive the point home.