Slashdot Mirror

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

(C) DEPOSIT AND USE OF AUCTION ESCROW ACCOUNTS.-- Any deposits the Commission may require for the qualification of any person to bid in a system of competitive bidding pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in an interest bearing account at a financial institution designated for purposes of this subsection by the Commission (after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury). Within 45 days following the conclusion of the competitive bidding-- (i) the deposits of successful bidders shall be paid to the Treasury; (ii) the deposits of unsuccessful bidders shall be returned to such bidders; and (iii) the interest accrued to the account shall be transferred to the Telecommunications Development Fund established pursuant to section 714 of this Act.

Are you serious or trying to be funny?? The FCC is the regulatory body for basically all telecommunications; thus Federal Communications Commission. Anybody who's in the communications business in the US is the FCC's bitch. Especially cable TV, with Kevin Martin currently wearing the FCC jester's hat.

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

I know that many "FCC Approved" electronic devices in the US have the following (US) FCC Notice labeled on them:
"This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and
(2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/labels.html

I Do Not think the FCC had in mind 10,000 Watt RF pulses for the "must accept any interference" clause.
I consider this a device with high problematic potential for numerous electrical devices at distances farther away than 15m. HAM Radio Operators in the US are limited to emissions of up to 1.5 kilowatts PEP (and 2.25 kilowatts PEP in Canada) of Electromagnetic Radiation on specific frequency ranges.
It is hard to fully imagine the interference that a device that emits 10,000 Watt pulses of Microwaves could do...
Imagine if it went off near a Datacenter... Imagine if it went off near a Hospital ICU or ER?
For that matter it could be used in the hands of "terrorists" to disrupt all sorts of sensitive electronic devices...
I can not imagine that this device would be something which US Government would allow to be be used in-country by any of its civilian law-enforcement agencies.

NOTE: MICROWAVE Radiation is NOT in the "100 hertz" range. It is in the 300 MHz to 300 GHz range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
The "100 hertz" frequency falls into the Bass hearing range of Sound Waves, NOT Microwaves...
Besides, 10,000W at 100 hertz is close enough to the 12-14 hertz "brown sound" that may actually be more effective stopping drivers of suspect vehicles... http://othermag.org/brownnoise.php

Great, Now "terrorists" are going to attempt to wire a series of 10 (easily obtained) 1,000 Watt 2450MHz microwave oven Magnetrons (powered by a 10 kilowatt inverter/capacitor/generator) on top their cars to pulse unsuspecting targets... -Z http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven

That may be true, but it is beside the point. FCC rules prohibit jamming devices. They regularly fine businesses that manufacture and sell said devices. Using one part of FCC rules in defense against another part doesn't work.

Links to details: http://www.conformity.com/cgi/se/exec/search.cgi?search=jammer&perform_search=Search&skin=
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html

http://www.conformity.com/newsman/publish/printer_156.shtml

The long and short of it is, jammers break the law. On a moralistic note, countering rude behavior with passive-aggressive rude behavior is imprudent.

SEC. 501. [47 U.S.C. 501] GENERAL PENALTY.

Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this Act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this Act required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this Act, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this Act punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 Communications Act of 1934 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

SEC. 502. [47 U.S.C. 502] VIOLATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SO FORTH.

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates any rule, regulation, restriction, or condition made or imposed by the Commission under authority of this Act, or any rule, regulation, restriction, or condition made or imposed by any international radio or wire communications treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto, to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party, shall, in addition to any other penalties provided by law, be punished, upon conviction thereof, by a fine of not more than $500 for each and every day during which such offense occurs.(quotation from the communications act,47 U.S.C 501(large pdf!)

Just so you know, they cannot stop you from mounting your own dish in your own exclusive use area (balcony or patio) Put a post in a bucket of concrete, and mount your dish on it. If the landlord complains give them a copy of this http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

I have even herd of people mounting their dishes inside and aiming them out of windows. May not work all the time,and you will have to have window coverings that are RF transparent, or open your window coverings whenever you want to watch TV.

Exactly! It does. You can even put up a TV antenna too under the law!

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

Under the OTARD rules, an owner or a tenant has the right to install an antenna (that meets size limitations) on property that he owns or over which he has exclusive use or control. This includes single family homes, condominiums, cooperatives, townhomes, and manufactured homes. In the case of condominiums, cooperatives, and rental properties, the rules apply to "exclusive use" areas, like terraces, balconies, or patios. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you and people you permit may enter and use. If the area is shared with others or accessible without your permission, it is not considered.
[...]
Restrictions necessary to prevent damage to leased property are permissible, as long as the restrictions are reasonable. For example, a lease restriction that forbids tenants from drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof is likely to be permissible.
An association, landlord, or local government may impose certain restrictions when safety is a concern or where a historic site is involved. An example of a safety restriction would be installing an antenna on a fire escape. Safety restrictions must be narrowly written so that they are no more burdensome than necessary to address a legitimate safety purpose.

Mod parent +1 Informative (I would, but I've already posted in this discussion). I didn't know about this rule. For confirmation, see this link.

According to this document at the FCC's website, cable modem service is not subject to common carrier regulation. While I'm no lawyer, and my knowledge of what exactly the regulations surrounding a "interstate information service" are, if any exist, but a lot of the posts here seem to be assuming that they are a common carrier like most other Internet service is, and that's just not the case.

The 2012 date is only one option of two that the cable providers have in complying with the FCC mandate. The other option is for cable companies to "carry the signal only in digital format, provided that all subscribers have the necessary equipment to view the broadcast content." http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-276576A1.pdf Translated into English, this means that if cable companies provide every customer with a set-top box (STB) to view digital channels, they can switch over earlier, which is exactly what many cable systems are choosing to do. This "analog migration" or "analog recapture" is currently in progress in the cable system I work for where we are moving analog channels over to digital incrementally and analog-only customers would have to get a STB in order to view these channels.

My only complaint was AT&T wouldn't allow my phone number to be ported to Verizon, therefore I have to keep the AT&T line for right now.

I believe you can complain to the FCC that AT&T is in violation of LNP rules

To play devil's advocate, consider how you don't have to change your number when you switch cell or telephone providers. Unless you really want a local number (which a lot of people don't care about these days, due to the free long distance provided with most cell plans), you really don't have any incentive to switch numbers. Forcing them to die out, then, could seem arbitrary.

Illegal. See FCC regulations on this.

Disclaimer: As mentioned before, I do work for a cable company.

Americans can get their traditional TV through a number of different providers, but it boils down to just a few methods of delivery: direct from the broadcasters over the air, from a satellite, via fiber owned by a telephone company, or via a hybrid fiber/coax network owned by a cable company. Of these options, cable providers are caught in the crossfire of regulatory demands and consumers who don't know enough about the technology itself to know what they really want. You never hear these complaints about satellite/FTTH (FiOS), only because the nature of their medium requires all digital transmission. But is 100% digital always "better" for the consumer? The answer is clearly no, not always.

As I'll explain later, much of the FCC's time is spent regulating the coax providers to help the "smaller players". Really, now...AT&T and Verizon are small players? When will the FCC step in to help the smaller players in the landline voice business, such as Vonage and VOIP? (Hint: they won't.)

Cable has been the incumbent for so long that they have become the Microsoft of TV. If there is any complaining to be done, lets complain about the cable company. But as I said, most consumers don't know what they are complaining about. Let's look at the ramifications if every cable company switched to 100% digital tomorrow...which seems to be to be what people want. Let's do a step by step breakdown:

The infrastructure in most cable systems does not need a rebuild for digital, just a little headend work and some maintenence in the field to fix issues that will visibly affect digital but not analog (CPD, microreflections, etc...). So, BAM! Cable is all digital. What happens the next day?

Firstly, ALL TV's without a digital tuner go dark. Great-aunt Maryrose and Gramma Clara turn on their perfectly good 1988 Zenith, and get static. They now have to go buy new TV's to use cable service, because consumers demanded digital transmission. In fact, this WILL happen when the OTA conversion happens in 2009, but OTA viewers may get subsidized boxes. (It will be interesting to see the FCC enforce the separable security statute with that one.) Cable companies get to eat the cost. In fact, this week the FCC guaranteed that cable companies eat the cost for an additional 3 years. They mandated that all cable providers (coax based only) provide a viewable analog OR digital signal to all subscribers until 2012. Linkage (pdf warning) It would be easier to comply by sticking with analog signals for the mandate, but customers (and the FCC) are demanding digital broadcast.

"But wait," you say, "they can get a digital cable box and keep the older TV!" Well, sure, but then we get to hear about how the cable company is bleeding it's customers dry by charging for equipment. I call horseshit on this one. Cable companies charge an average $7.50 monthly lease fee for the box that costs them $300 upfront, plus maintenance and repair. In "only" 40 months of maintenance free operation of that box, the cable company breaks even. Yeah...that's certainly not what I would call milking the customer.

"Why can't they use a third-party box, like a TiVO?" you might ask. They certainly can but to access encrypted channels, the box will need CableCards, the abomination of technology that they are. I work in the billing department and since they are authorized through our billing software, I support and troubleshoot CableCARDs on a daily basis. They have potential, and would work SO much better if manufacturers would standardize on a set of firmware...but I'm diverging from the point. Besides, the bigger question is "WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE MAKE A 3RD PARTY BOX?!" Personally, I think there is not currently a market for cable boxes. How much money did TiVO lose last quarter? Ah...only $17 million.

According to the article, yes. And based on the new box my dad recently got, that's exactly what Comcast is doing.

You can also read the same answer off the FCC's website in this PDF of their press release.

According to the article, yes. And based on the new box my dad recently got, that's exactly what Comcast is doing.

You can also read the same answer off the FCC's website in this PDF of their press release.

Largely, the concern is that the unlicensed devices will not accurately determine whether a channel actually is unused. Recent tests showed that test devices would wrongly assume a channel to be free for use 19% of the time when that channel was actually occupied by a usable analog TV signal. Of course, analog TV goes away in about 18 months, so maybe we shouldn't worry about it -- but the figure was much worse for digital TV.

58% of the time, the devices would wrongly assume a channel was free for use when it was in fact occupied by a useful digital TV signal.

          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3457A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A2.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf

I think a fair part of the problem is that people are willing to use considerably larger antennas for TV reception than they're willing to use with wireless short-haul modems. A TV receiver with an attic UHF Yagi antenna attached will deliver a clean picture from a digital TV station that's way too weak to receive on a wireless device with an internal antenna.

Another recent FCC estimate (which I can't find right now) states that approximately 20% of U.S. homes do not have cable or satellite. It also found that a large number of homes that do have cable also have one or more TVs that are not connected to the cable.

Largely, the concern is that the unlicensed devices will not accurately determine whether a channel actually is unused. Recent tests showed that test devices would wrongly assume a channel to be free for use 19% of the time when that channel was actually occupied by a usable analog TV signal. Of course, analog TV goes away in about 18 months, so maybe we shouldn't worry about it -- but the figure was much worse for digital TV.

58% of the time, the devices would wrongly assume a channel was free for use when it was in fact occupied by a useful digital TV signal.

          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3457A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A2.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf

I think a fair part of the problem is that people are willing to use considerably larger antennas for TV reception than they're willing to use with wireless short-haul modems. A TV receiver with an attic UHF Yagi antenna attached will deliver a clean picture from a digital TV station that's way too weak to receive on a wireless device with an internal antenna.

Another recent FCC estimate (which I can't find right now) states that approximately 20% of U.S. homes do not have cable or satellite. It also found that a large number of homes that do have cable also have one or more TVs that are not connected to the cable.

Largely, the concern is that the unlicensed devices will not accurately determine whether a channel actually is unused. Recent tests showed that test devices would wrongly assume a channel to be free for use 19% of the time when that channel was actually occupied by a usable analog TV signal. Of course, analog TV goes away in about 18 months, so maybe we shouldn't worry about it -- but the figure was much worse for digital TV.

58% of the time, the devices would wrongly assume a channel was free for use when it was in fact occupied by a useful digital TV signal.

          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3457A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A2.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf

I think a fair part of the problem is that people are willing to use considerably larger antennas for TV reception than they're willing to use with wireless short-haul modems. A TV receiver with an attic UHF Yagi antenna attached will deliver a clean picture from a digital TV station that's way too weak to receive on a wireless device with an internal antenna.

Another recent FCC estimate (which I can't find right now) states that approximately 20% of U.S. homes do not have cable or satellite. It also found that a large number of homes that do have cable also have one or more TVs that are not connected to the cable.

Largely, the concern is that the unlicensed devices will not accurately determine whether a channel actually is unused. Recent tests showed that test devices would wrongly assume a channel to be free for use 19% of the time when that channel was actually occupied by a usable analog TV signal. Of course, analog TV goes away in about 18 months, so maybe we shouldn't worry about it -- but the figure was much worse for digital TV.

58% of the time, the devices would wrongly assume a channel was free for use when it was in fact occupied by a useful digital TV signal.

          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3457A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A1.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275666A2.pdf
          http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-275668A1.pdf

I think a fair part of the problem is that people are willing to use considerably larger antennas for TV reception than they're willing to use with wireless short-haul modems. A TV receiver with an attic UHF Yagi antenna attached will deliver a clean picture from a digital TV station that's way too weak to receive on a wireless device with an internal antenna.

Another recent FCC estimate (which I can't find right now) states that approximately 20% of U.S. homes do not have cable or satellite. It also found that a large number of homes that do have cable also have one or more TVs that are not connected to the cable.

you're right it's bull - i thought the fcc is forcing an end to analogue broadcast tv , precisely because the more-efficient digital broadcasting enables better use of the spectrum (= more use / variety)? it will interfere to the extent that it gets in the way of their own use of the extra space.

You might want to let your HOA know they are infringing your rights. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Read this fact sheet which others have linked:

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

Near the bottom says that the onus is on the HOA to show that their rules do not infringe on your right, that they cannot fine you unless if you lose the ruling *and* fail to remove the antenna within the 21 grace period. Plus, while you are fighting, you do not have to remove your antenna unless it's a fight about safety or historic preservation.

I like seeing HOAs get screwed.

I suggest you read this:

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

It seems like you could easily get away from using a "recommended installer" by calling it an unreasonable expense. From the fact sheet:

Q: What is an unreasonable expense?

A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such permits are generally prohibited. It may also be unreasonable for a local government, community association or landlord to require a viewer to incur additional costs associated with installation. Things to consider in determining the reasonableness of any costs imposed include: (1) the cost of the equipment and services, and (2) whether there are similar requirements for comparable objects, such as air conditioning units or trash receptacles. For example, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas. A requirement to paint an antenna so that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable, provided it will not interfere with reception or impose unreasonable costs.

Fight the good fight against the HOA!

Q: I want to install an antenna for broadcast radio or amateur radio. Does the rule apply to me? A: No. The rule does not apply to antennas used for AM/FM radio, amateur ("ham") radio (see 47 C.F.R. 97.15), Citizen's Band ("CB") radio or Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS").

You can show your finger to the HOA since they don't have the power to stop you from putting up an antenna. It is your right under federal law. FCC gives home owners the rights to install antenna to receive TV channels. I have one in my HOA neighborhood and nobody has questioned me. Check the following link http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/consumerdish. html

Here's a nice PDF from Uncle Charlie:

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

Sorry NBC... I'm too far away from your transmission tower. My suburban HOA won't allow for an antenna that can tune in your signal well enough.

They can't do that:

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.

It consists of an RF transmitter to open the doors, etc, and a passive RFID chip that had to be read by the steering column before the car will start. If you look at the other products on the FCC site by Valeo, you'll see various steering column readers and door lock receivers. The transmitter is actually fairly complex - it uses rolling codes to help prevent theft by replaying/predicting codes.

NextWave declared bankruptcy after defaulting on $4.7 billion due on spectrum wireless licenses awarded to the company by the FCC in 1996. The FCC revoked NextWave's spectrum rights, arguing that the company had paid only a fraction of what it promised, and re-auctioned the rights to companies including Verizon and VoiceStream. NextWave sued, however, contending that U.S. bankruptcy laws protected the company from the FCC license revocation. The dispute reached the Supreme Court in January 2003, with the court ruling that the FCC had improperly seized more than 200 wireless licenses from NextWave. The FCC was forced to refund the $16 billion in proceeds from the sale of NextWave's licenses.

I know in Canada, I can get the BBB or CRTC to investigate a shady business... but AFAIK they don't do anything without a complaint.

It's your country and your ISP; get things started!
FTC complain form
FCC complaint form
BBB complaint form

Looks to me to be fast, easy, and free. Step up!

One might argue that *approving* these devices would prop up the stranglehold cable companies have on the consumer...

These were preliminary tests of what the FCC called "Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices". "White Space" referring to unused TV channels. What the FCC was testing was the ability of these devices to determine that a given TV channel was unused. Two devices from different manufacturers were tested. (the FCC documents don't specify which device is Microsoft's) They were not complete systems - one didn't even contain a transmitter - the test was to determine whether the units could accurately determine whether it was safe to use a channel.

It didn't work very well.

Prototype A, tested at a variety of locations in homes in the Washington, DC area, falsely detected a channel as occupied (and unavailable for use) 15% of the time. Far more disturbingly, it falsely detected a channel as unused (and available for use) 58% of the time when a useful digital TV signal was present on that channel. While analog TV is likely to go away in the U.S. before these devices can be brought to market, they did falsely find a channel to be clear of useful analog signals 19% of the time.

Other tests with the one that did contain a transmitter found that interference was caused to digital reception to a distance of 87m - and that with the wireless device at reduced power.

Point being, that as currently designed, these devices would wipe out digital TV reception, forcing owners - and their neighbors - to subscribe to cable or a satellite service. FCC figures show that 20% of homes still rely on over-the-air TV reception, and millions of homes that already have cable also have one or more sets that aren't connected. Such interference would not be trivial.

Personally, I think this kind of thing is going to prove problematic. To reliably detect the presence of a TV signal strong enough to be viewed, your "white space device" is going to need an antenna at least as good as what's attached to the TV set - and as far from noise-spewing computers (and other digital devices) as the antenna attached to the TV set. Consumers have a hard enough time accepting an "ugly" antenna on their TV. Microsoft & competitors are going to have a hard time selling these boxes if they have to have an antenna too.

The FCC documents: (the 2nd is the most relevant but also the most technical)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-07-3457A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275668A1.pdf

One might argue that *approving* these devices would prop up the stranglehold cable companies have on the consumer...

These were preliminary tests of what the FCC called "Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices". "White Space" referring to unused TV channels. What the FCC was testing was the ability of these devices to determine that a given TV channel was unused. Two devices from different manufacturers were tested. (the FCC documents don't specify which device is Microsoft's) They were not complete systems - one didn't even contain a transmitter - the test was to determine whether the units could accurately determine whether it was safe to use a channel.

It didn't work very well.

Prototype A, tested at a variety of locations in homes in the Washington, DC area, falsely detected a channel as occupied (and unavailable for use) 15% of the time. Far more disturbingly, it falsely detected a channel as unused (and available for use) 58% of the time when a useful digital TV signal was present on that channel. While analog TV is likely to go away in the U.S. before these devices can be brought to market, they did falsely find a channel to be clear of useful analog signals 19% of the time.

Other tests with the one that did contain a transmitter found that interference was caused to digital reception to a distance of 87m - and that with the wireless device at reduced power.

Point being, that as currently designed, these devices would wipe out digital TV reception, forcing owners - and their neighbors - to subscribe to cable or a satellite service. FCC figures show that 20% of homes still rely on over-the-air TV reception, and millions of homes that already have cable also have one or more sets that aren't connected. Such interference would not be trivial.

Personally, I think this kind of thing is going to prove problematic. To reliably detect the presence of a TV signal strong enough to be viewed, your "white space device" is going to need an antenna at least as good as what's attached to the TV set - and as far from noise-spewing computers (and other digital devices) as the antenna attached to the TV set. Consumers have a hard enough time accepting an "ugly" antenna on their TV. Microsoft & competitors are going to have a hard time selling these boxes if they have to have an antenna too.

The FCC documents: (the 2nd is the most relevant but also the most technical)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-07-3457A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275668A1.pdf

One might argue that *approving* these devices would prop up the stranglehold cable companies have on the consumer...

These were preliminary tests of what the FCC called "Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices". "White Space" referring to unused TV channels. What the FCC was testing was the ability of these devices to determine that a given TV channel was unused. Two devices from different manufacturers were tested. (the FCC documents don't specify which device is Microsoft's) They were not complete systems - one didn't even contain a transmitter - the test was to determine whether the units could accurately determine whether it was safe to use a channel.

It didn't work very well.

Prototype A, tested at a variety of locations in homes in the Washington, DC area, falsely detected a channel as occupied (and unavailable for use) 15% of the time. Far more disturbingly, it falsely detected a channel as unused (and available for use) 58% of the time when a useful digital TV signal was present on that channel. While analog TV is likely to go away in the U.S. before these devices can be brought to market, they did falsely find a channel to be clear of useful analog signals 19% of the time.

Other tests with the one that did contain a transmitter found that interference was caused to digital reception to a distance of 87m - and that with the wireless device at reduced power.

Point being, that as currently designed, these devices would wipe out digital TV reception, forcing owners - and their neighbors - to subscribe to cable or a satellite service. FCC figures show that 20% of homes still rely on over-the-air TV reception, and millions of homes that already have cable also have one or more sets that aren't connected. Such interference would not be trivial.

Personally, I think this kind of thing is going to prove problematic. To reliably detect the presence of a TV signal strong enough to be viewed, your "white space device" is going to need an antenna at least as good as what's attached to the TV set - and as far from noise-spewing computers (and other digital devices) as the antenna attached to the TV set. Consumers have a hard enough time accepting an "ugly" antenna on their TV. Microsoft & competitors are going to have a hard time selling these boxes if they have to have an antenna too.

The FCC documents: (the 2nd is the most relevant but also the most technical)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-07-3457A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275668A1.pdf

One might argue that *approving* these devices would prop up the stranglehold cable companies have on the consumer...

These were preliminary tests of what the FCC called "Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices". "White Space" referring to unused TV channels. What the FCC was testing was the ability of these devices to determine that a given TV channel was unused. Two devices from different manufacturers were tested. (the FCC documents don't specify which device is Microsoft's) They were not complete systems - one didn't even contain a transmitter - the test was to determine whether the units could accurately determine whether it was safe to use a channel.

It didn't work very well.

Prototype A, tested at a variety of locations in homes in the Washington, DC area, falsely detected a channel as occupied (and unavailable for use) 15% of the time. Far more disturbingly, it falsely detected a channel as unused (and available for use) 58% of the time when a useful digital TV signal was present on that channel. While analog TV is likely to go away in the U.S. before these devices can be brought to market, they did falsely find a channel to be clear of useful analog signals 19% of the time.

Other tests with the one that did contain a transmitter found that interference was caused to digital reception to a distance of 87m - and that with the wireless device at reduced power.

Point being, that as currently designed, these devices would wipe out digital TV reception, forcing owners - and their neighbors - to subscribe to cable or a satellite service. FCC figures show that 20% of homes still rely on over-the-air TV reception, and millions of homes that already have cable also have one or more sets that aren't connected. Such interference would not be trivial.

Personally, I think this kind of thing is going to prove problematic. To reliably detect the presence of a TV signal strong enough to be viewed, your "white space device" is going to need an antenna at least as good as what's attached to the TV set - and as far from noise-spewing computers (and other digital devices) as the antenna attached to the TV set. Consumers have a hard enough time accepting an "ugly" antenna on their TV. Microsoft & competitors are going to have a hard time selling these boxes if they have to have an antenna too.

The FCC documents: (the 2nd is the most relevant but also the most technical)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-07-3457A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275666A2.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-275668A1.pdf

Apparently you never noticed the 6 Dollar USF charge on every telephone bill you got. It was on your bill, it has been on everyones*

http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/

*With little exception.

Did you know that the television industry has voluntary ratings for TV programs?

Dude... ham radio. Check it out. They dropped the morse code requirement, so the barrier to entry is very low.

or check out Low Power FM Radio here.... yes, you need to apply but the barrier to entry, again, is very low.

(I enjoy ham radio ... sounds like you might like LPFM better)

What you've described sounds like the Amateur Radio Service, also called ham radio.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/47cf r97_06.html

        The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an
amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the
following principles:
        (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service
to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service,
particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
        (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to
contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
        (c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
        (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
        (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
enhance international goodwill.

If you study hard and upgrade your license to General or Amateur Extra class, you'll find you have access to valuable notches of spectrum all across the RF range. Basically every conceivable type of spectrum you might want to experiment with, you can find an amateur band to play with. For example, the 6 meter band (as in, wavelength of 6 meters -- 50 to 54 mhz) ends right where the current broadcast television channels 2, 3, and 4 begin.

So if you want to see why these bands are so valuable, get yourself a ham license and go roll your own radio! HAM equipment doesn't have to be type-certified by the FCC first. I believe this is the only FCC radio service under which you are allowed, even encouraged, to build your own.

And yes you can discuss your personal views on the air with people. No profanity, no commercial speech, and no 'broadcasting' -- you must be talking to someone, not talking to everyone who can hear.

The FCC publishes Amateur Radio Service related enforcement actions. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html Go ahead and look around -- you'll find letters for people being poor neighbors, operating in frequencies they're not allowed, deliberately interfering with police radio bands, operating with expired or suspended licenses -- but no citations about people expressing opinions.

THX QSO 73 K :-)

Cell phone vendors trade in a precious commodity (the airwaves) held in the public trust. There is already law that prohibits building telecommunication barriers. The iPhone pretty much ignores these requirements (PDF warning).

Then voice your support for the open-access requirements to the FCC themselves.

Guess what... secure sockets (https). So they DO use it.

Perhaps this will provide Sir Steve the incentive he needs to do the charity thing in a serious way - he could fund a cure for blindness! Then he could create the perfect UI without having to compromise his vision of the perfect UI.

For those curious, the SAR rating on the iPhone appears to generally lie on the lower end of the spectrum. See pages 29-30 of this FCC test report: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retr ieve.cgi?attachment_id=766946&native_or_pdf=pdf [PDF]