Slashdot Mirror

In the US your landlord can prohibit you from drilling a hole through an exterior wall, making installation a pain. See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html about half way down, "Are there restrictions that may be placed on residents of rental property?". I have worked closely with installers and reputable ones always require owner consent before they punch holes in a building.

I found some indoor/outdoor antenna reviews.

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages/squareshot.htm

Here is the FCC fact sheet on pre-emption rules regarding antenna placement. Read it and determine if it is something you want to fight with.

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

At my place they simply require a professional installer to perform the task.

Google remains your friend.

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

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

Rental property that is part of an "exclusive use area" such as a patio or balcony is covered.

In practice, under the amendment to our rules, renters will be able, subject to the terms of our Section 207 rules, to install Section 207 devices wherever they rent space outside of a building, such as balconies, balcony railings, patios, yards, gardens or any similar areas.

47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000.

Read more about it here. 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."

There are some restrictions. For example you aren't guaranteed the right to mount your dish/antenna on a common area such as a roof or a wall. However, balconies and patios are fair game. As another poster else-thread mentioned, if your unit faces north, you're pretty SOL as far as dishes go.

The FCC can not tell a property owner he or she must allow an antenna.

The tiniest amount of googling shows that your statement is demostrably false. This FCC document clearly states:

The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property.

The FCC can not tell a property owner he or she must allow an antenna

I don't think that's true. This seems pretty clear.

http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/ea/procedures.html

Let him know what you think on the FCC website.

The lobbyists just won't let it go, will they. The link in the posting just above points to yet more false statements by Robb Topolski, a Free Press lobbyist. See http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520035605 for a complete refutation.

As usual, half the story. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520035161

The lobbyists have made so many false statements -- to the media, on their Web site, to members of Congress, and directly to the FCC -- that it's hard even to know where to begin! I could spend an hour or two writing a message that goes through just the ones I've seen. But to save time, I'll refer you to a document filed by Comcast which describes and refutes some of the most egregious false statements that they made on the record to the FCC. See http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520034944

Comcast in fact has claimed that the FCC in fact does not have authority to regulate the Internet. See its filing with the FCC regarding this, and its followup here.

The recent decision in CBS v. FCC (the "wardrobe malfunction" case) may also bear on this decision. The court struck down the FCC's ruling against CBS, saying that the FCC couldn't just make up the rules as it went along! Normally, the FCC promulgates rules by posting a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," takes comments, and only then creates rules (which are set out in writing before anyone can be cited for a violation).

But in this case, the FCC published only a vague and explicitly nonbinding "policy statement," on which the public had no chance to comment at all. And it's now trying to say, "Fooled ya! You believed us when we said that it was nonbinding, but we're retroactively turning it into a set of hard and fast rules so that we can take a swipe at Comcast. Why? Because we want to, that's why."

Worse still, that policy statement had several serious problems. For example, it required that Internet users be allowed to run the "application of their choice." While politicians may not graspthe full implications of this, the readers of Slashdot, as computer geeks, know how dangerous this could be. An "application" (a computer program which is not an operating system) encodes and embodies behavior â" any behavior at all that the author wants. And anyone can write one. So, insisting that an ISP allow a user to run any application means that anyone can program his or her computer to behave any way at all â" no matter how destructively â" on the network, and the ISP is not allowed to intervene. In short, such a requirement means that no network provider can have an enforceable Acceptable Use Policy or Terms of Service. Port scanning? The ISP has to allow it, even if it's a prelude to an attack, because it's not illegal. Better turn off all of the intrusion detection systems which detect and block port scans! Exploits? If they haven't been declared to be outright illegal, they are "applications" and so you must not block them. Anyone who engages in destructive behavior, hogs bandwidth, or even takes down the network with an intentionally or unintentionally destructive program could just say, "I was running an application⦠and I have the right to run any application I want, so you canâ(TM)t stop me."

Great work, FCC.

Now, imagine yourself as the administrator of a school network, a public hotspot, an ISP, or any other network which provides service to the public. Someone is doing something disruptive. Your users are complaining; quality of service has deteriorated. But if you act, and especially if you focus on the destructive behavior by detecting the rogue application and attempting to block it and not others (so that legitimate traffic can still get through), you would be subject to FCC fines and penalties.

The above conundrum is but one example of why any proposed rules or regulations pertaining to the Internet should be presented to the public for comment as part of a formal rulemaking process. The FCC is not only regulating what Congress, in its own policy statement, said should not be regulated. (If the FCC makes a policy statement, and Congress makes one, the one made by Congress obviously trumps the FCC's.) The Congressional policy is laid out at 47 USC 230(b), and it says:

It is the policy of the United Statesâ"

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet an

Comcast in fact has claimed that the FCC in fact does not have authority to regulate the Internet. See its filing with the FCC regarding this, and its followup here.

The recent decision in CBS v. FCC (the "wardrobe malfunction" case) may also bear on this decision. The court struck down the FCC's ruling against CBS, saying that the FCC couldn't just make up the rules as it went along! Normally, the FCC promulgates rules by posting a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking," takes comments, and only then creates rules (which are set out in writing before anyone can be cited for a violation).

But in this case, the FCC published only a vague and explicitly nonbinding "policy statement," on which the public had no chance to comment at all. And it's now trying to say, "Fooled ya! You believed us when we said that it was nonbinding, but we're retroactively turning it into a set of hard and fast rules so that we can take a swipe at Comcast. Why? Because we want to, that's why."

Worse still, that policy statement had several serious problems. For example, it required that Internet users be allowed to run the "application of their choice." While politicians may not graspthe full implications of this, the readers of Slashdot, as computer geeks, know how dangerous this could be. An "application" (a computer program which is not an operating system) encodes and embodies behavior â" any behavior at all that the author wants. And anyone can write one. So, insisting that an ISP allow a user to run any application means that anyone can program his or her computer to behave any way at all â" no matter how destructively â" on the network, and the ISP is not allowed to intervene. In short, such a requirement means that no network provider can have an enforceable Acceptable Use Policy or Terms of Service. Port scanning? The ISP has to allow it, even if it's a prelude to an attack, because it's not illegal. Better turn off all of the intrusion detection systems which detect and block port scans! Exploits? If they haven't been declared to be outright illegal, they are "applications" and so you must not block them. Anyone who engages in destructive behavior, hogs bandwidth, or even takes down the network with an intentionally or unintentionally destructive program could just say, "I was running an application⦠and I have the right to run any application I want, so you canâ(TM)t stop me."

Great work, FCC.

Now, imagine yourself as the administrator of a school network, a public hotspot, an ISP, or any other network which provides service to the public. Someone is doing something disruptive. Your users are complaining; quality of service has deteriorated. But if you act, and especially if you focus on the destructive behavior by detecting the rogue application and attempting to block it and not others (so that legitimate traffic can still get through), you would be subject to FCC fines and penalties.

The above conundrum is but one example of why any proposed rules or regulations pertaining to the Internet should be presented to the public for comment as part of a formal rulemaking process. The FCC is not only regulating what Congress, in its own policy statement, said should not be regulated. (If the FCC makes a policy statement, and Congress makes one, the one made by Congress obviously trumps the FCC's.) The Congressional policy is laid out at 47 USC 230(b), and it says:

It is the policy of the United Statesâ"

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet an

Good reading for the layperson: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf

Until someone proves that heat causes cancer (as in, a CAUSAL relationship, not a CORRELATIVE relationship), I'll keep yacking away on my cell phone....

btw: not gonna happen..

This could easily turn into spam. The problem is that this may not be considered a "call" under the Do Not Call list rules for cell phones. It might be legal to spam via this route. Uh oh.

Federal Universal Service Charge:

A fee that AT&T charges you for simply being a customer that pays taxes on service(pretty much all of us, unless covered by a government contract for service. They government does not tax itself). They CAN tell you what that one is, per month, as they determine the amount, not a government agency. They simply choose not to. The name is misleading. It has NOTHING to do with the Federal Government. AT&T pays a fee to the Government, they simply pass that fee onto you although they are not mandated to do so.

Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge:

A fee AT&T charges you to recoup the cost of PROCESSING taxes on BEHALF of government agencies. It costs them money to do the accounting for your taxes and they, quite simply, pass the cost to you directly. This is not a tax or government-imposed fee. They CAN tell you what this one is, per month, as they determine the amount, not a government agency. They simply choose not to.

911 Training Fee:

This is a fee AT&T charges you. Unless it specifically mentions a municipality, state or other entity, the fee is going to AT&T. It is always on the bill, yet some areas do not have this fee as the training is usually paid for by the "911 Service Fee". If your local or state governments do not have such a fee, it is replaced on the bill by AT&T's own fee, and thus, they can tell you what it amounts to, each month, as it is determined by them, not a government agency. If it DOES specifically mention a entity other then AT&T, then AT&T may decline to tell you specifically what the amount will be, month to month, as they have no control over changes to the fee made by this other entity.

State Sales tax:

An actual tax! The state gets this fee. AT&T may decline to tell you the month to month cost of this tax as they have no control over the changes in such a tax. AT&T spends money calculating and billing you for this tax. The cost of such calculating and billing is passed on to you in the form of a "Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee"(see above)imposed on you by AT&T.

911 Service Fee:

A fee many local and state governments charge to offset the cost of 911 Emergency systems. AT&T collects this tax from you on behalf of the government. AT&T charges you to do this in the form of a "Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee"(see above)

If ANY of these charges apply to you, the cost of calculating them and billing you for them is passed onto you, the customer, in the form of the "Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge", imposed entirely by, and for the benefit of, AT&T.

I might add that there are NO regulations regarding the inherently slimy practice of a company putting their OWN fees in the same portion of your bill as the REAL taxes and fees. It is a con to give the impression these charges originate outside the company and to lend an air of authenticity, to state their own fees in the guise of of a governmentally-imposed fee. It is, quite simply put, a scam.

AT&T is not the only company that does this. They all do. Look at your bill. Then go read the FCC page regarding these fees/taxes/ripoffs at....

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/phonebills/samplePhonebill.html#Carrier%20Universal%20Service%20Charge:

there's been a lot of talk on /. lately about broadband and mobile broadband capacity. The taxes that we pay are directly linked to that.

telecommunications and broadband operators get federal monies from the universal service fund to expand infrastructure to the entire nation. I mean that's the purpose for the universal service fund. Why haven't telecom/mobile and broadband operators expanded their capacities and/or service areas? They are required to pay into the fund. They pass the costs directly on to us. Then they get that money back to build out their infrastructure.

Why aren't they doing it? Where is that money ending up?

11/20/2007 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07J-4A1.pdf

section I article 2. "We are also mindful that it is consumers who must pay universal service contributions.
Despite our strong interest in providing adequate funding for broadband deployment, we also want to
avoid significantly increasing the burden on those consumers."

section I article 4. "The Joint Board recognizes that while mobility and broadband
capabilities have both received some funding from universal service dollars, the funding has been entirely
within the formal context of providing basic voice telecommunications services by eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs)."

This was from a recommendation document where the universal service fund commissioners issued a recommendation that they setup an additional fund for broadband and one for mobile service. Where is that money ending up? AT&T, Sprint, and T-mobile are all rolling out 3g services. Where is the broadband service capacity increases?

If you do some research, the FCC was VERY close to legalizing low power FM stations, but then the measure just quietly died.

No it didn't. Things may not have turned out as some envisioned, but it happened. Due to interference issues, most of the available allocations were outside of major metropolitan areas. IIRC correctly, licenses were generally being granted to established non-profits. Religious broadcasters really moved in on that more than anyone it seems. They were ready too.

If you'd like to see what's out there now, do an FCC FM Database search.
For starters leave the fields blank, but for the popup menu choice under "Service:" Pick "Low Power FM FL", then a ways down the page hit the "Submit Data" button. That'll bring up 1000 or so entries. Those with LIC after the frequency are licensed. CP means construction permit. APP means application. MOD means modification (usually altered plans in a construction permit)
Check out the names of the licensees...

There's quite a bit of low-power TV around too.

Regulation is essential from a technical standpoint. The main area I have issues with is who gets the licenses and what their responsibilities are. Unfortunately major consolidation has been allowed in broadcasting. I would have liked to have seen the opposite where a large percentage of stations would have to be owned by licensees living in the coverage area.
All should be functioning as trustees of the public interest. The impact of media is huge on the functioning of Democracy, education, our economy and so many social issues. The deregulation that brought consolidation, infomercials, and anything for a buck has done great damage. Even those that don't see the deeper issues have likely noticed many more commercials than years ago, and a serious decline in the quality of programming.

Considering that selling influence to raise money for campaigns is one of the bigger components of our political corruption, we should look at ways of cutting the ad dollars to broadcasters. Stations should be required to provide free political public affairs time to candidates, and interested members of their community of license. Diversity in station ownership would help insure that a good cross section of views are presented.

The wrong regulations, or corruption in the process, have serious repercussions in the media just as we've seen with telephony/ISPs, food safety, banking, health care....

We need FCC regulation, but to serve the public, not broadcasters.
Positions in the FCC are by appointment. Keep that in mind when voting for those that make the appointments.

According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they do. And there are four principles that all broadband providers must implement.

Here is the contact info. I have used both the online form and the phone number.

I got that same message twice on my cellphone, which is in the 707-245 even though I live nowhere near there. :P (It's annoying because people in my same town where I live and where I told my cellphone company I live have to pay a toll call to talk to me.) I actually reported the second one.

Start filling complaints. You can get info on filling here: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/donotcall/

Make sure you drop the commissioner a note to say thanks!

Here's why there trying to bend the legal system for this. Had there been a state line between the two parties (however large or small they were) this would have been illegal under the Communications Act of 1934, specifically Section 223, which covers cyberstalking. Especially since the victim was a minor. You can read it yourself here
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
The illegality of this isn't fuzzy under this law either, these action violate 4 out of the 5 subsections so I'm not nit-picking.

However since both parties were in the same state it falls under state law. Missouri's legislative branch being ignorant about the advances in communication left a hole in their criminal law and don't want to just let those responsible go because that would look very bad at the next election.
So obviously rather than let the "child abuser/harasser/evil adjective of your choosing, go they throw everything at the problem and see what sticks. To cover their own ass, that's all.

Read the law and learn for crying out loud. What PNutts is doing is a federal offense.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular

Operations
Blocking & Jamming

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

What country do you live in? In the US, the FCC requires all TVs and receivers (cable or satellite) to support closed captioning, and depending on content (but clearly for all new content, which includes news and sports) requires programmers (ie networks/stations) to provide closed captioning in their broadcasts.

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

If you aren't in the US, I'd be really surprised your country's broadcasting/disability laws are so far behind the US (where these have existed for almost 15 years), as from what I have seen the FCC almost always picks the worst broadcast standards of those available (or makes up a new one when there aren't any existing ones that are bad enough). If you are in the US (and your TV is less than 15 years old), check again, I'm sure you can get CC. NBC/ABC/CBS have no reason to violate FCC rules.

And where is the government we paid for? They should be seriously thumping these clowns over the head for even considering "combating internet traffic" which is clearly the type of traffic intended when the 1996 Telecommunication Act was passed and the deregulation started.

Section 706 paragraph (c) line 1 states:

(1) ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY- The term
                            `advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without
                            regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed,
                            switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables
                            users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
                            graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.

The key here being enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video, thats right, originate AND receive. Somebody clue these dolts in to the fact the internet is not TV 2.0.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way subscribers are utilizing their ISPs, this is exactly as it was envisioned by the authors of the 1996 Act. Imagine that, government officials having better vision for the future of technological advancement in telecommunications than the people running the companies. I can tell you why, the problem is also the clueless bean counters and MBAs could care less about technology, innovations, etc. and would demand a monthly fee just cause if they could get away with it. These people should be running illegal whore houses and extortion rackets, not technology corporations.

If our government doesn't step in and force these bozos to provide the service they advertise and were given deregulation perks for then we may need to step in and explain that they don't own our back yards through which they run their damned cables, I deserve a tariff since its my land they're hauling all those bits through.

Look into this website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/canspam.html

You may file a complaint here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

Look into this website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/canspam.html

You may file a complaint here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

Read the actual proposal here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1081A1.txt

Go here to file your comment:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.hts?ws_mode=proc_name&proc_id=08-82

Be sure to fill in all the fields marked "(required)" and set your submission as a "comment".

For maximum compatibility and greater chance of serious review, use the "send brief comment" box at the bottom instead of uploading a lengthy DOC file. Keep in mind that they don't care what so much what you personally don't like. Make your comment clear and concise about how this action violates your rights or attempts to defeat the protections the FCC is supposed to defend.

Be sure to click Finish Transaction after submitting.

Read the actual proposal here:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1081A1.txt

Go here to file your comment:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.hts?ws_mode=proc_name&proc_id=08-82

Be sure to fill in all the fields marked "(required)" and set your submission as a "comment".

For maximum compatibility and greater chance of serious review, use the "send brief comment" box at the bottom instead of uploading a lengthy DOC file. Keep in mind that they don't care what so much what you personally don't like. Make your comment clear and concise about how this action violates your rights or attempts to defeat the protections the FCC is supposed to defend.

Be sure to click Finish Transaction after submitting.

Where I live, the cable company obtained its monopoly by showering county government officials, and their relatives, with money and jobs. They were all Democrats. Not that it would have been any different if they were all Republicans.

The Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, specifically prohibits the president from packing the commission with members of one political party. There are other parts of the law that were designed to keep the commission independent and balanced. In any event, the commission's powers are limited to what has been delegated to them by the legislature. If you read the law, as amended, the FCC has very limited power to set policy. Most of those decisions were made by the legislature, and given to the FCC to implement.

Communications Act of 1934: as amended by the Telecom Act of 1996

TROLL? The FCC defines broadband as greater than 200 Kbps. I was simply wondering if they were using the same metric or a better one.

Why is everybody confused? The FCC already has legally definitions for "obscene" and clearly, since they're the ones auctioning off the frequency block, they'd be the ones deciding the definition of obscene. If you're still confused, here's how it works: Watch TV. Whatever they can do there, they can do on an obscenity-filtered wireless service. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

"The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose." (emphasis added)

from the FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas

So if the national seashore's purpose is in part historic preservation (which I believe it is) then they can prohibit the placement of dishes in, for example, locations that are visible from public view.

I am in such an historic preservation district elsewhere in Massachusetts and we are not allowed to make any change to our properties that is visible from the street without getting architectural plans for the proposed change and submitting an application to the local Historical Comission. The process can take a year or more, and I seriously doubt they'd approve a naked dish on my roof.

Bottom line, put the dish in the back yard behind a fence or shed so it is not visible from any publicly accessible street/road/beach etc.

I'm not sure about all of the details with regard to TV antennas being banned. Perhaps you might want to look at the following link: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

they're living in an area where there's likely to be local ordinances against blatantly jarring or modern features on houses.

From the XBox 360 Manual

From the Amazon description of power cables

Some of which are still flying. The rule is there because nobody can ensure that the airplane you're on and every other nearby plane at the airport are safe.

Also, not a single one of those old phones that DID cause the interference is in use today since those old networks were dismantled years ago.

For values of years ago that include two months ago. There were people using those networks up until the last day, too. In the more rural parts of the country, an old analog phone was often more useful than a newer phone.

The Electrical Engineer in me cringes every time I here the term "bandwidth" used in place of "data rate."

Still, >200Kbs is the answer to your question.

"The term broadband commonly refers to high-speed Internet access. The FCC defines broadband service as data transmission speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (Kbps), or 200,000 bits per second, in at least one direction: downstream (from the Internet to the userâ(TM)s computer) or upstream (from the userâ(TM)s computer to the Internet)."
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html

Verizon won't even sell me an ISDN circuit. Bastards.

Not like I'm bitter. See my other post on this thread for my bitch-session on satellite Internet access.

The real kicker is that the county a couple miles to the south line has DSL access available for every home from its telco cooperative (Shentel). But not Verizon. Verizon will wire up FiOS all day long to its precious consumer base in densely-populated Northern Virginia and the DC suburbs, but will hardly lift a finger to provide even decent dial-up service out in rural areas.

Universal Service Fee, my ass.

Y'know what modem speed I get when I dial up my local Verizon access number? 23.4kbps if I'm lucky, 19.2kbps if I'm not. Not even a 28.8kbps connection. Welcome to 1995.

Granted 2.4 GHz is an efficient frequency for heating due to the resonance of the water molecule, but exposure from other sources is far more intense. Cell phones are close enough to the body to be worth looking at. And if anyone is paying any attention to raw power, some of those UHF TV stations have effective radiated power levels of as much as 5 million Watts!

That ought to be enough to make those infomercials sink in...
(Of course if you feel that broadcasters are failing to serve local communities very well there is still time to file comments with the FCC.)

If you use the 100W column with 0db, you'll note that the acceptable distances peak between 10m and 1.25m. You body has resonances between those wavelengths, enhancing the absorption of energy. (a quarter wave at 10m is 2.5m, which approaches typical male height. A 50MHz quarter wave is 2m - pretty close to average height and near the center of the absorption peak.)

Supplement B, Appendix A, Table 1 lists the acceptable exposure limits in algebraic form.

If you use the 100W column with 0db, you'll note that the acceptable distances peak between 10m and 1.25m. You body has resonances between those wavelengths, enhancing the absorption of energy. (a quarter wave at 10m is 2.5m, which approaches typical male height. A 50MHz quarter wave is 2m - pretty close to average height and near the center of the absorption peak.)

Supplement B, Appendix A, Table 1 lists the acceptable exposure limits in algebraic form.

If you use the 100W column with 0db, you'll note that the acceptable distances peak between 10m and 1.25m. You body has resonances between those wavelengths, enhancing the absorption of energy. (a quarter wave at 10m is 2.5m, which approaches typical male height. A 50MHz quarter wave is 2m - pretty close to average height and near the center of the absorption peak.)

Supplement B, Appendix A, Table 1 lists the acceptable exposure limits in algebraic form.

Most of the regional coverage is much larger than one municipality, and doesn't necessarily stay on boundries. http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/CMA.pdf

Ever try to herd cats?

Also, I really doubt that there is a politician in the world who's able to get people to agree to spending millions on spectrum, when there are many more things that eat up budget money.

Now, since the block D spectrum didn't meet the minimum bid, why not turn it over to the schools? It is the smallest chunk, and it has the public service bands anyway. We keep hearing about how schools are underfunded and unable to move into the 21st century, but if it was easy to adapt mass marketed radios for the D block, and towers can be put on schools (since, for the most part, they are geographically centered), it just might provide a minimum level service for not much money.

"Triad 700, LLC" - whoever they are. The full results are on the FCC auction site.

https://auctionsignon.fcc.gov/signon/index.htm

Login to Auction 73 and click 'results'.