Slashdot Mirror

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.

... so the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapses ...

The I-35 bridge collapsed because of a design flaw. (Mostly. The inspection engineers had a case of tunnel vision.)

We don't have local radio now - all programming is run by conglomerates. If that rail car in Fargo derails and leaks methylisocyanate - there is no way to warn the locals.....

You mean besides the Emergency Alert System, which is required by law to be supported by a wide variety of radio transmitters.

(2) Video programming distributor. Any television broadcast station licensed by the Commission and any multichannel video programming distributor as defined in  76.1000(e) of this chapter, and any other distributor of video programming for residential reception that delivers such programming directly to the home and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

and "any other distributor of video programming for residential reception that delivers such programming directly to the home" sounds like it fits.

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.

There are also technical issues; HDMI doesn't have a CC stream so the merge of CC or subtitle and video have to happen in the Roku box or upstream.

Doesn't this break the US Government laws on requiring closed captioning?

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html Is the URL... but there is a lot of abiguity right now as this FEDERAL (not States) law is what governs what/how school children must be protected while using School resources that access the Internet. => The Childrenâ(TM)s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers. CIPA imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding for Internet access or internal connections from the E-rate program â" a program that makes certain communications technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the FCC issued rules implementing CIPA. More recently, Congress enacted additional protections for children using the Internet.

four letters: CIPA. From the FCC's webpage:

Schools and libraries subject to CIPA are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called "hacking," and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors' access to materials harmful to them.

If the President of the United States can, with a signing statement, ignore laws that he thinks are unconstitutional, why can't a K-12 student do the same?

A student could reasonably argue that those rules violate the Bill of Rights, despite what any court may say.

Many of those provisions are merely attempts by conservative religious groups to impose their own religious doctrines upon people who follow another religion (or no religion at all). For example, they define nudity per se as "harmful to minors," even though there's no evidence that nudity (or even obscenity) is harmful to anyone by any rational definition.

The real lesson for students is: (a) You have rights to explore ideas (b) You don't get those rights at the sufferance of your school or the government; the Constitution says that those are inalienable rights (c) If anybody tries to take your rights away from you, you have to fight them, and fight for your rights.

...about 300 kids K-12. I'm a little surprised that you're asking this question. Are you a technology coordinator who is now addressing these concerns for a district who has never addressed them until now?

Most districts have access restriction policies that students have to agree to and sign. I'm sure about 95% of the Slashdot crowd's gonna scream to high heaven against restrictions, but it's a no-brainer. In short, four letters: CIPA. From the FCC's webpage:

Schools and libraries subject to CIPA are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called "hacking," and other unlawful activities by minors online; (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors; and (e) restricting minors' access to materials harmful to them.

These last two are really the biggest ones to consider when drafting an Acceptable Use policy, particularly the last, since "materials harmful to them" could mean practically anything.

Our district has taken steps to block MySpace, FaceBook, etc., because all these websites allow minors to publish themselves online. If students accessed these sites at school, and the child was kidnapped due to information posted on MySpace, districts may be found liable.

And banning MySpace will certainly not make these laptops useless. I'm surprised by this comment...it sounds quite ignorant. Districts didn't spend millions of dollars on these machines for students to post poorly-made self-portraits of themselves online. They (I hope) spent the money to grant students equal access to a tool that can be used to enhance learning. I would see a school-owned laptop in the hands of a student exactly the same way as any other computer at school. I'd restrict the hell out of it, because until they graduate and buy it for themselves, the district is responsible for what is done with that laptop.

hey c'mon, that's not fair...

everyone knows Deborah Tate gets at least some of her talking points from Clear Channel.

Tate (Clear Channel) on the XM/Sirius merger:

Such a gross ownership disparity creates such a lopsided competitive advantage for a single company that it utterly distorts the marketplace.

Tate (Clear Channel) on expanding their network of more than 1200 terrestrial radio stations:

the FCC should be focusing its attention on how to ensure the continued vitality of free radio by moving forward on its review of reasonable relaxation of the local ownership rules.

Translation:
satellite radio monopoly = bad!
terrestrial radio monopoly = good!

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/photos/ppdtt.jpg

What about latency and reliability? I'm happy with 3.6 Mbit/s, or even lower, if I get a reliable connection with low latency. Rock solid 512 kbit/s with 20 ms latency would be preferable to anything available in the mobile market right now.

I will be happy when I get 100 MB / 100 MB bi-directional access to the internet for around $50 per month. Heck the Japanese have had this level since 2003 and now in 2008 they are migrating up to 1GB / 1Gb for less than $55.00 per month. How far behind do we have to fall anyway?

As for

Who cares about bandwidth?

I do!

I still want the same speed upstream as I am getting downstream. Enough excuses already time to honor your promises to the United States government and U.S. consumers. (Note: While some of the telcos that promised no longer exist, I would suggest that the homes and area that they serviced does still exist. The business that acquired their area, should also acquire responsibility to build out that area per the promises that the telco that was bought made. I would suggest that they bought both the assets and the liabilities. I believe this liability, a public trust if you will, should be passed on as it is attached to our tax dollars, fees-still-being-charged every month and government funding and therefore should not be ignored because the business was purchased and/or acquired....my .02 cents)

As of 2008, no US customers have the 45 Mbps bidirectional service to our homes and you guys promised to have 86 million customers receiving 45 Mbps by 2006. And certainly not for the expected cost of .50 cents per 1 Mbps of bi-directional bandwidth.

And do NOT state that you are providing high speed access to consumers based on the FCC definition of high speed internet, 200Kbps - try to run videos at that speed, high speed my behind....

Also about bandwidth, I want to be able to consume the total amount of bandwidth that I am (and have been) actually paying for. It's not my fault that the telcos and internet providers have taken money from consumers and the U.S. government (estimated at over $200 billion since early 1990s in the form of tax breaks; increases service fees and outright government funding) and used it for buying up companies rather than building out their infrastructures. ( Funny how similar the telcos reaction to receiving money was to the current financial companies and banks that received the buy in / bail out money by the government recently).

I am concerned that the wireless providers will play the same sleight of hand with or without the FCC for wireless internet that they have been playing with hard wired access. Surprised they are not asking for tax breaks, money or a bail out as well!

Now for a question to those of you who say reduce the latency and than work on speed, because I honestly do NOT know the answer. Here is the question:

If you had 100MB / 100MB (bi-directional) at how high a latency (how slow could it get) until you were as slow as what the average American high speed internet user gets today? (Assume an average bandwidth of 8.8 Mbps downstream (I do not get that either, but it is the average listed in the articl

illegal to jam signals electronically, but so far Faraday cages are legal

devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b)
If the faraday cage is built for the primary purpose of blocking signals, then it is likely just as illegal as a active (low power) jammer.
if the effect of either is limited to your private property it is unlikely to get any attention as long as it doesn't interfere with those outside your property.
I do think, because the Cage couldn't be removed or turned off, it would likely be safer from a lawsuit, definitely not a guarantee for theaters.

I fully back you on this. Now, control your children.

You'd think that the V-Chip would be a raging success with all the froth and fury that exists over "indecency" on Television....

Yet every survey has shown it to be a resounding failure.
Parents don't RTFM and they don't use the V-Chip.

These are public airwaves, and the public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used. Saying you can't broadcast porno over the public airwaves doesn't limit free speech, it just means you have to find somewhere else to do it.

Actually it does. See, there are a minority of people that believe it should be allowed. Our "represitive government" wasn't put in place to protect the majority; they don't need protect. It was intended to protect the minority. So saying the "public" has the right to restrict whatever it wants is nonsense, because the "public" doesn't have one view on the matter. There's no concensis.. which is why this case is here. By the way, representivie government is explicitly NOT allowed to limit free speech.. the choice was made 200 years ago. We can't tell our government to regulate it, for the reason that it turns out to be a really bad idea.

Oh, there are frequencies you can use to broadcast your speech in as well. You might want to read up on it.. fortunately there's a lot of bandwidth out there, and we've chosen to chop it up into blocks for various reasons.

http://www.fcc.gov/lpfm/

Wouldn't there be huge amounts of interference if the spectrum was unlicensed? Could someone not just make a jammer for the frequencies in question and spoil it for everyone? Or do FCC laws cover that even when it's not formally licensed? IANAEE.

FCC Regulations, Part 15 covers this in great detail.
Here's an excerpt from sub-section 5

If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications, even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will be required to cease operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

Here is a PDF from the FCC entitled "UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR LOW-POWER, NON-LICENSED TRANSMITTERS", which is exactly the rules which would be applicable to the hardware used for accessing the White-Space Broadband Spectrum .

Your correct that they can spoof these numbers by using "stealing" call forwarding feature on the legitimate phone lines from many places. This is like spam bots covering tracks of the bot master where they take over other computer to send out spam in bot master place. However, just like spam bots you can trace these but it does take a large amount of effort between the phone companies since this can transverse several phone companies and countries. Actually I worked many people to search for bomb threat phone calls to my old company, our legal department said we need to get the FBI, FCC, and the phone company. First they got a court order via FCC to get the records and then traced that to several international phone companies which Interpol via the FBI took care of that, then the trace came back to US and FBI took over that part, and after several months tracing we knew which city that person was living in so FBI monitored that person for awhile before they had sufficient evidence to have a case against them an arrest him. All I can say that person had more than just threats via phone on him.
First try the FCC to see what they can do:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/callerid.html
Then, if you have the resources, contact an private investigator and lawyer specializing in telemarketing issue to see what they have.
Local police may have limited resource to handle illegal telemarketing calls but if they have the time they can start the process for you at least that is a start.
I get these stupid phone calls also and they all start with the line "Your car warranty is expired..." and all of them are all prerecorded messages so I wish that would get these female donkey anal orifice:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/19/2229245

I wonder if there would be any merit to a class action law suit on this. I recently took advantage of the FCC decision http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238850A1.pdf to require IEEE-1394 / FireWire out from the cable boxes, to find out the 160$ package I bought could not be watched on my FireWire enabled DVR & display.

So I went out and bought a HDMI to DVI cable http://www.mwave.com/mwave/SkuSearch_v2.asp?SCriteria=BA22631 to watch on my projector & DVI flat panel to get an overlay from the cable box that says "this output is not authorized" and my show in the background for every channel.

I found this article on the FCC website that I thought was interesting:

"Operating such [white space] devices on the adjacent channel causes interference with digital television & $40 coupon, government-subsidized digital-to-analog converters. WSD operating at 100 milliwatts would cause interference in 84% of the television viewing area." We need to stop these Androids before they cause further harm.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520175536

The FCC addresses this on their "Is it true?" rumors page. Click here.

Short answer: There is shaky evidence which suggests the telecommunications and avionics conflict with each other, and the decision to not allow them to interoperate during certain times is a precaution.

Moment of Insight: Passengers are asked to put their gadgets away so that their attention can focus on important messages in case an emergency actually occurs.

...how much the V-chip is used by parents. In a nutshell, an FCC report tells us that a 2007 Zogby poll reported a V-chip usage of 12 percent. What I want to know is how are they going to get parents to use "advanced blocking technologies" when the parents won't even use what they currently have?

And it's not just about me. There are ~50 million other people in the same boat - relying upon over-the-air television. You have no right to cut them off from TV with your interfering web-widgets.

Wait, ~50 million other people use huge 25dB antennas to get channels from out-of-state TV stations? Somehow I think you're making that up... or did you perhaps mean that a rare few would be "cut off from TV", and the vast majority would be totally unaffected?

What makes you think you're guaranteed to be able to receive some weak signal from a 70-mile-away station anyway? I don't know what "region" you're in, but if I'm reading this correctly then a 100kW TV station could broadcast on the same channel if it's 290 km (~180 miles) from the nearest 100kW station on that channel. If I'm reading this and this correctly, the stations could be as close as 114 miles apart. Obviously those can't both be correct but take your pick; either way I'm betting your reception would be screwed.

And it's not just about me. There are ~50 million other people in the same boat - relying upon over-the-air television. You have no right to cut them off from TV with your interfering web-widgets.

Wait, ~50 million other people use huge 25dB antennas to get channels from out-of-state TV stations? Somehow I think you're making that up... or did you perhaps mean that a rare few would be "cut off from TV", and the vast majority would be totally unaffected?

What makes you think you're guaranteed to be able to receive some weak signal from a 70-mile-away station anyway? I don't know what "region" you're in, but if I'm reading this correctly then a 100kW TV station could broadcast on the same channel if it's 290 km (~180 miles) from the nearest 100kW station on that channel. If I'm reading this and this correctly, the stations could be as close as 114 miles apart. Obviously those can't both be correct but take your pick; either way I'm betting your reception would be screwed.

Good point. The microphones in question will be banned from the new 700 MHz safety band after the DTV cut-over, and will be useless within used DTV channels. Paradoxically, the FCC docs clearly outline testing against part 74 wireless mics. How those two statements fit together I cannot fathom.

Good point. The microphones in question will be banned from the new 700 MHz safety band after the DTV cut-over, and will be useless within used DTV channels. Paradoxically, the FCC docs clearly outline testing against part 74 wireless mics. How those two statements fit together I cannot fathom.

>>>Each station has its own coverage maps... and that information seems to be restricted

Not really. Goto http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tvq?call=WGAL and type in the call letters of your favorite stations. Once there you'll see this:

Site: Region Map Area Map Local Map

Clicking on these links provides maps of the coverage. The one drawback is that these seem to be overly-optimistic for digital coverage (most of the stations the FCC claims I should see, I do not). But hey, at least it's a start.

It looks like the distance from the old tower to the new tower is more like just 30 miles (not 60 miles). That can still be a significant problem for many people who were using indoor antennas. So now you might have to do like people further away and put up an outside antenna. But it would have been nice to have made this known to people up front. It's still worth a complaint letter to the FCC in reference to their widespread failure to ensure that equal coverage was maintained.

It looks like the distance from the old tower to the new tower is more like just 30 miles (not 60 miles). That can still be a significant problem for many people who were using indoor antennas. So now you might have to do like people further away and put up an outside antenna. But it would have been nice to have made this known to people up front. It's still worth a complaint letter to the FCC in reference to their widespread failure to ensure that equal coverage was maintained.

[...] There are no minor imperfections (bit of snow, slightly fuzzy or ghosting), you either get a perfect reproduction if the error rate is within the error correction's limits or nothing at all. (on/off).

In theory, that's absolutely right. In practice, it's not so clear cut. I'm in Chicago and have been feeding HD signals into Mythtv for a bit over a year with the HDHomerun. I've been feeding SD signals from either cable or satellite into it for over three years.

For about the first eight months of recording HD I was on Comcast, and got eight or nine local OTA channels in QAM off the HDHR. The FCC requires cable operators to carry local digital (icluding HD) chanels unencrypted where they are available locally.

The signal came through very cleanly and the picture was great, but it was clear there had been some compression. At times there were some glitches -- intermittent black screens, pixelization and blockiness, momentary freezes and jumps, etc. I saw all the same glitches at various times with the STB hooked straight up to the TV, so I'm quite sure that Myth didn't create the distortions.

So with cable, it is pretty much a binary proposition -- you get (more or less) exactly what's coming over the line or you get nothing at all.

But for the last five months or so, I've been feeding it OTA signals (ATSC) with rabbit ears. I live in a coach house about seven miles north and four miles west of the center -- where all the TV transmitters are atop the Sears Tower or the Hancock building.

My antenna faces west, and the house has walls built over 100 years ago by people afraid of big fires. As a result, I get at times considerable interference in the signal. When it's good, it's fantastic -- a mile better than the QAM signal from Comcast. But at times I get random characters, freezes, audio pops, etc.

The distortions are noticeably more frequent when it's raining. I've seen the same behavior on other sets around the city.

Most likely, it's because those channels are splitting their wattage between analog and digital transmissions until the switch. The digital transmissions are at hugely lower output levels than their analog equivalents.

There is definitely interference, but unlike poor analog signal, poor digital signal is impossible to watch.

Echoing the other comments, I'll just to add a couple of links: lots of great information from an Alaskan station, and you can find details about specific US TV broadcasters at the FCC.

Propagation curves(PDF warning) for Analog and Digital broadcasts and a do-it-yourself calculator here.

Propagation curves(PDF warning) for Analog and Digital broadcasts and a do-it-yourself calculator here.

Propagation curves(PDF warning) for Analog and Digital broadcasts and a do-it-yourself calculator here.

They haven't said, but it's clear the issue is how the stations are being grouped. Nielsen does own the copyright to the term Designated Market Area (DMA) as well as what those areas are.

Television Market Areas are based on material copyrighted by Arbitron, Areas of Dominant Influence (ADI), and Nielsen Media Research, Designated Market Areas (DMA).

List the stations by state, or commonly accepted region, and everything should be fine.

How in God's name is an association of TV station titles to markets in which they can be received copyrightable?

TFA is vague. Information about the call sign, location, frequency, and parent company are all in the public domain as they are published by the FCC. However, Nielsen complies market data about the location. The most important of which is an estimate of the number of possible viewers. Each city is ranked by the number of possible viewers. At the top of the list is obviously New York, NY followed by Los Angeles, CA on down. However, stations transmit with different amounts of power. A 1000 watt station will reach far fewer people than a 50,000 watt station. Nielsen goes through considerable effort to estimate the potential audience for each station, and charges for the data. This data is data is very valuable to those in broadcasting and advertising. Wikipedia was giving it away for free.

The problem with this, you can go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp to get pretty much ANY information that they publish.

Also, the WRTV (World Radio and Television Handbook) has been in existence for literally decades. This lists EVERY known station in the WORLD, their location, power output, frequencies of operation, sometimes antenna structures, etc., etc., etc... WAY more than Neilsen ever produced.

NOW, if the information was gleaned directly from Neilsen, then yes, it's copyrightable. BUT, if they only used FCC.gov, or ANY of the radio afficianado sites on the internet (and I know of literally a hundred plus) to look up information, then it's complete bullshit.

HOWEVER, as someone else had said, it is wrong for them to take the pages down, just on a DMCA. WRONG. The DMCA was enacted to protect things. The DMCA should be followed, but a standard should be set that after the DMCA has been followed, the offending pages removed, their should be some type of review to see if the pages where, in fact, in violation.

Anywho, it's funny. Nielsen is trying to copyright information available on the internet from nearly every government spectrum management association.

--Toll_Free

Not sure what information the pages had on them, but you can get a lot of technical information on stations from the FCC. Including the the exact lat/long of their antenna, it's height above sea level, output in watts, etc. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/tvq.html You can also easily get programming information at tv.yahoo.com. I'm not sure what Neilsen is trying to "protect" here.

Oh, so sorry, but that is incorrect. Thank you for playing, there are some lovely parting gifts out back.

Quote:

Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?

A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:

[...]

(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

One major change is that most stations will be moving from UHF to VHF,

That's not true. VHF-low is considered pretty much useless for digital, due mainly to the amount of noise there is in the range.

So, HALF of the VHF spectrum is going to be unused almost everywhere in the country (Alaska notwithstanding), leaving just 6 VHF slots available. See: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

I don't know about where you are, but 6 is much less than "most" of my available local channels.

In fact most of the major broadcasters here broadcast on VHF-low. They're all going to do the number scramble thing, and end up as some random number, high in the UHF range. Hope you've got a good antenna.

The US has similar restrictions, however even after the changeover is complete, many stations will still be operating at 1/10 of their original power (or less). You can find information on specific station licenses via FCC's TV Query

Twelve Grand?! Is this another indicator of inflation? Who is billing this out? For 12 grand the phone companies should give you a phone that will work for life, from anywhere, to anywhere. Are the same people responsible for claiming that a quarter of schwag has a "street value" of fifty grand?

Well look at it this way. $12,000 in calls divided by the 400+ calls would bring it to less than $30 per call. For anyone who has made calls to overseas knows that the rates are freakin expensive.

For example from the FCC
Here are sample costs for calls to France from the U.S. at basic and discounted rates:

Basic Rate is $1.77-2.77 per minute

Note: The actual rates and terms from companies you choose may be different than those shown.

One of the problems is that some telemarketers, and probably fraudsters are using VoIP lines that dump out on modem lines for large ISPs in various areas. I'm not sure exactly how their doing it but I have traced some of the calls back to these dial up access lines. I don't know if the servers have been hacked or if the ISP actually allows it but it seems to be causing some expenses for them as they are state to state long distance calls by the time they reach me.

Of course they could be spoofing the ai for the caller ID and making it appear as if the calls are coming from the ISP. In either case, it is difficult to hold the right people accountable when you cannot track them down. But even then, you need to report what you think is illegal behavior.

Here are a few sources in case you don't have them already
Do Not Call' complaints: https://www.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx

FTC complains about marketing practices and other stuff: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/ (click in the wizzard)

FCC, for complaints about junk faxes and telemarketing: https://esupport.fcc.gov/form1088/consumer.do

There are probably more resources availible on a state level and but they would be dependent on the specific state. There might even be more on a federal level but those are the major ones I think.

I don't have an account with you assholes, I just want you to stop calling me with recorded messages.

Just in case it helps:

AT&T these days will let you block up to 10 numbers to a land line you can specify through your web account. Other services often will allow the same. It's kept a few of the more annoying telemarketers away from our house. I'm particularly tired of the political messages but I seem to have no legal recourse for those.

You also can file a complaint with the FCC in many cases though it isn't always clear if any action will be taken. Satisfying though...

You're right, except for point B, as there are already stations broadcasting digital in VHF. (WBRE and WYOU in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, for example.)

But yeah, a lot of the stations currently on VHF analog will move their digital signals back to their old VHF channels after the switch. From what I understand, VHF transmission requires less power than UHF.

You're right, except for point B, as there are already stations broadcasting digital in VHF. (WBRE and WYOU in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, for example.)

But yeah, a lot of the stations currently on VHF analog will move their digital signals back to their old VHF channels after the switch. From what I understand, VHF transmission requires less power than UHF.

Legally, your apartment complex MAY NOT prevent you from putting a "reasonable" size TV antenna up on the roof. You're allowed by law to do so. The law exists to prevent people from feeling "forced" to get cable instead of using OTA antenna.

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

Tell your apartment complex you'll buy the most reasonable antenna that does the job, and you'll also pay a qualified installer (unless they want to do it). If they say no, show them the law in the most kindest way possible.

Indoor antennas will never get you good results, especially at the bottom of a 3-story building.

You are right. You can see the FCC channel assignment tables on their web site.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-72A2.pdf

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

As directed by Congress in Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the
Federal Communications Commission adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Devices ("OTARD")
rule concerning governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on viewers' ability to
receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites ("DBS"), broadband
radio service providers (formerly multichannel multipoint distribution service or MMDS),
and television broadcast stations ("TVBS").

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it
prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas
used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including
direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter
(or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule
prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation,
maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance
or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies
to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or
patio.

"The field test data also indicate that indoor reception of DTV signals is more challenging. Indoor service availability ranged from 75-100 percent in cities with a small to moderate percentage of obstructed sites and from 31-40 percent in markets with a large percentage of obstructed sites."

( http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/reports/dtvreprt.pdf ") New technology was supposed to improve indoor reception, but it hasn't, and there's going to be a whole lot of people that can't get DTV over the air next February. Just a minor technical detail from your government.

No federal law covers MOUNTING only USE AND PLACEMENT. They can not forbid you to USE an external, but you do not rent the outside walls of the building and they can take repairs to the balcony out of your security deposit.

Hence, "Sure I could have an unattached antenna (say, on a pole in a 5-gal bucket of cement). But when you're north facing you're pretty much sol when it comes to reception."

It is black-and-white here. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?

A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. 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.

Q: Does the rule apply to condominiums or apartment buildings if the antenna is installed so that it hangs over or protrudes beyond the balcony railing or patio wall?

A: No. The rule does not prohibit restrictions on antennas installed beyond the balcony or patio of a condominium or apartment unit if such installation is in, on, or over a common area. An antenna that extends out beyond the balcony or patio is usually considered to be in a common area that is not within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the rule does not apply to a condominium or rental apartment unit unless the antenna is installed wholly within the exclusive use area, such as the balcony or patio.

Q: I live in a condominium with a balcony, but I cannot receive a signal from the satellite because my balcony faces north. Can I use the roof?

A: No. The roof of a condominium is generally a common area, not an area reserved for an individual's exclusive use. If the roof is a common area, you may not use it unless the condominium association gives you permission. The condominium is not obligated to provide a place for you to install an antenna if you do not have an exclusive use area.

Note that if any part of your antenna hangs over the edge of your balcony, you are not covered under these rules.