Slashdot Mirror

Before trying to create the truth by repeating a lie, get the facts. In my market, on the fm dial, we have 3 general college radio stations. We have one left radio station, and two other college stations that are leftish. We have 3 christian radio stations. The other 20+ stations are commercial, I believe mostly owned by two or three enitites. At times over the past couple years, one could find 2 pairs of stations playing the same content. I do not think these stats are atypical.

The overcrowding of the FM dial is real. There are times when, at least on an analog tuner, it is difficult to distinguish a single station. NPR is not, with it's single station, or at most two, in each market, crowding the dial. What is crowding the dial is the relaxation of the ownership rules. While the summery touched on this with putting corporate radio first, the summary also implied that the problem will be solved by simplying allowing the airwaves to become more crowded.

This will not solve the problem. And while Fox news is not going to state the obvious solution, I will. Limit ownership of bandwidth to one station per entity. If the FCC wants to a vibrant radio dial, review the rules set 10 years ago. There is not reason why a single entity should ever own more that a couple stations in any market. Period. If that means the commercials stations drop precipitately, so be it. There are evidently operators out there biting at the bit, angry that they cannot get a place to play. Ownership rules will open up that space.

Actually the landlord can't do much to prevent you from getting satellite tv. But the cable companies do have that attitude.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html#QA explains the dish/antenna thing better then I ever could.

For what it's worth, broadband is actually defined in the US (according to the instructions to Form 477* (PDF, and XLS file warnings respectively)) as wired "lines" or wireless "channels" that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.

At least non-bonded ISDN lines are not counted. *shrug*

*WTF is Form 477, you ask? It's a form that must be filled out by broadband providers (wireline, wireless, and moble telephony). Seems like it would be a pretty authoritative place to define what broadband is. Now whether this report takes that in to consideration is another matter entirely.

For what it's worth, broadband is actually defined in the US (according to the instructions to Form 477* (PDF, and XLS file warnings respectively)) as wired "lines" or wireless "channels" that enable the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction.

At least non-bonded ISDN lines are not counted. *shrug*

*WTF is Form 477, you ask? It's a form that must be filled out by broadband providers (wireline, wireless, and moble telephony). Seems like it would be a pretty authoritative place to define what broadband is. Now whether this report takes that in to consideration is another matter entirely.

Could someone post a link to the place where we can submit a comment

Go here (link from TFA). Here's what I wrote:

As a technology professional, I earn my entire income from creating
pages and applications on the Internet. The Internet has equalized
my range of opportunities with people all over the world. I can live
in the city where I grew up and work for any company in the world.

This is possible because of the open, non-proprietary nature of the
Internet. On the web, a huge corporation and a single person are
equal. While we live in a time where starting most types of
businesses has become too expensive for an entrepreneur to even try,
the Internet provides a brand new space for unlimited ideas, even
for someone with almost no money at all.

If the web is no longer neutral, we will ultimately hurt our small
businesses and entrepreneurs who won't be able to afford premium
speeds from the major Internet Service Providers. On a non-neutral
Internet, innovation will be slowed down just like the bandwidth
of the web sites I create.

Please do not be fooled into thinking that an Internet fast lane is
going to help anyone but the large corporations that don't really
need any help at all.

Here's my post. I encourage everyone to POST THEIR THOUGHTS TO THE FCC!!

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/ upload_v2.hts?ws_mode=proc_name&proc_id=07-52

If network neutrality is not upheld, this will have a disastrous effect
on the market for Internet services. Service companies that rely on
advertising or other revenue not directly taken from the consumer are
currently operating on the basis that they are paying for bandwidth they
use, therefore they pay in proportion to the amount of people that visit.
This has the effect of allowing very small services and companies on the internet, which will
effectively be barred from competing if ISPs are able to throttle
consumer's connection speeds and ability to connect to these
services on condition that the service provider itself pay. This
effectively raises the barrier to entry in the service providing market
to an arbitrarily high limit, one which is determined only by the market
practices of ISPs in every area the service provider wishes to serve.

This would, in effect, require every service provider to do extensive,
and expensive, research to determine which geographical market area
they wish to provide service to, which diminishes competition in the
service providing market by limiting any given service provider to operate
only in the areas that the service provider can afford or otherwise provide
for agreements with ISPs.

Some will say that no network neutrality will spur the ISP market by
causing new demands for ISPs that do not throttle connection speeds,
however this is dependent on the public knowledge of exactly what is
going on behind the scenes. This has the effect of raising the
barrier to entry of the ISP business, as any new business that seeks
to benefit by offering un-throttled connections would first have to
either take on the expense of educating the market that they wish
to serve or to only serve a market which is already aware of the
difference.

As both of these effects raise the barrier to entry of Internet related
markets, and serve to benefit large established companies at the expense
of smaller ones, it is not in the public interest to allow ISPs to
classify traffic based on arbitrary conditions such as those that
would be dependent on which service provider a consumer is communicating with.

File away! http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/

Or here's a direct link to the FCC comment site.

Well, if you have a VHF only antenna, then you certainly need a new antenna because digital OTA broadcast is UHF-only.

It may be an old trick, but it's now an illegal trick. Fax spam is illegal, since unlike telephone spam and email spam, there are easy-to-quantify material costs associated with fax spam. Basically, you can't send unsolicited faxes. See
the FCC's rules on unwanted faxes.

While you can block caller-id of your fax machine and anonymize its identity info, if you're going to run the fax in a loop as described, it would be possible for the receiving business to notice what's going on and call the phone company to find out who you are. Not only are you doing something illegal, but you're clearly aware of it, because you're trying to hide your identity. From a legal perspective, this is called "bad faith", and makes it more likely that you can be successfully prosecuted.

So while this may have worked 20 years ago, doing this kind of thing in 2007 may be a bad idea.

Sure, there's the Federal Excise Tax (not sure what that goes to), but there's still the Carrier Universal Service Charge. Even though land line coverage has been established to nearly every reasonable location in this country for many years, we still pay for it. That is indeed a subsidy, and the industry still suckles that particular federal teat.

Last I heard, censorship is when The Man(tm) takes forcible action to squash a story that's damaging, incriminating, or otherwise detrimental to The Powers That Be(tm). You know, like North Korea killing stories of mass starvation ...

Well, the man has a lot to do with broadcast media which is where the alledged censorship occurred. As broadcast still dominates the public perception, you should be very worried that broadcast is dominated by a very small number of companies that can easily be bullied/bribed by their federal masters. At that rate, there is no distinction between public and private censorship. One of the stories on the list is growing hunger in the US. Could it be that someone has kept you from learning of actual starvation?

Censorship is insidious, you never know what you are missing.

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/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_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_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_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_04/47cf r74_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

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/wiretap25 10_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap25 10_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_04/47cf r25_04.html,
subpart D
ttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr 74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cf r74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r74_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_04/47cf r74_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

Association contracts that prohibit satellite dish installations are not enforceable. See this document from the FCC on this. This overrides any contracts or HOAs or CC&Rs in the United States.

Tertiary Obligatory Citation...

and, Part 15 Spread Spectrum Transmitters in the 2.4GHz bands are limited to 1 W Output Power...

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf

(see table beginning page 7, specifically pages 20 and 21)

Secondary Obligatory Citation...

Transmitters of less than 7 W are generally excluded from the acceptable exposure limit guidelines, because they are not generally capable of whole body heating, even though certain handheld devices might produce localized effects that exceed the limits. These low-power and portable device are usually rated by "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)". I think Wi-Fi devices should probably fall into this category, especially since notebook computers can easily be within the 20 cm proximity limit.

Also check out OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields":

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf

and Supplement C to same:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf

Secondary Obligatory Citation...

Transmitters of less than 7 W are generally excluded from the acceptable exposure limit guidelines, because they are not generally capable of whole body heating, even though certain handheld devices might produce localized effects that exceed the limits. These low-power and portable device are usually rated by "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)". I think Wi-Fi devices should probably fall into this category, especially since notebook computers can easily be within the 20 cm proximity limit.

Also check out OET Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields":

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65.pdf

and Supplement C to same:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet65/oet65c.pdf

Thanks for clarifying my point. I would also like to add that VoIP has some significant value as a replacement for POTS telephones (and no, you don't have to pay for an active phone line to have DSL service). The FCC sees telephones as being important enough that they established the Universal Service Fund in 1996 "to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas." It follows that VoIP, as a low-cost replacement for POTS service should also be considered to be an important "advanced telecommunications service" that needs to be available and as reliable as possible.

Oblig. citation...

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf

see page 15 for limits on acceptable uncontrolled exposure in the relevant frequency range (1 mW/ cm^2).

Go check out the test reports on the FCC website https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewEx hibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&c alledFromFrame=N&application_id=268052&fcc_id='BCG A1203'. It is worth noting that Apple filed a confidentiality request for the Test Setup/External/Internal photos and the user manual for 45 days after certification. If you are an RF/Elec. engineer the reports may be interesting to you.

Regarding the use of trusted third parties, the Commission provided the following guidance on the use of TTPs in the CALEA Second Report and Order, at paragraph 26: "The record indicates that TTPs are available to provide a variety of services for CALEA compliance to carriers, including processing requests for intercepts, conducting electronic surveillance, and delivering relevant information to LEAs. Given the effectively unanimous view of commenters that the use of TTPs should be permitted but not required, we conclude that TTPs may provide a reasonable means for carriers to comply with CALEA, especially broadband access and VoIP providers and smaller carriers.

The Federal Communications Commission is a department of the US Government that regulates RF transmissions in the borders of the USA.

The money collected for this goes to the government and is used for administrative costs such as issuing licences, tracking down violators and other general expenses.

Over the years since we first started modulating RF energy to send encoded data and voice transmissions the FCC has grown to regulate many other aspects of broadcast media. As it relates to your question, the various frenquency bands need to be regulated because, as we all know, you can't just trust people to "do the best thing".

The FCC allocates frequencies for radio stations, commercial, H.A.M Radio, various consumer technologies such as 802.11x, CB, walkie-talkies (usually implemented on the CB bands), cell phones, and just about anything that transmits a radio signal of any kind. These frequencies can become very crowded and oftentimes overlap (for example H.A.M Radio operators are allowed to transmit on 2.4 GHz in the same band that wireless networking is allocated).

At one point the bands were allocated according to what they determined to be the "Best Public Use" (or something like that). Now they just auction it off to the highest bidder. Some qualifications and guidelines are set out for both who can bid and what the frequency can be used for, how much power they can transmit on that frequency, etc.

FCC Aucitons Website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=a uctions_home

• Junkfax
• Junkbusters
• If you're in the US, the Federal Communications Commission

The FCC can issue warning citations and impose fines against companies violating or suspected of violating the junk fax rules, but does not award individual damages. If you have received a fax advertisement from someone who does not have an established business relationship with you or to whom you have not provided prior express permission to send fax advertisements, you can file a complaint with the FCC. You can file your complaint by completing the FCC's on-line complaint Form 1088 at: www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html; e-mailing fccinfo@fcc.gov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.

Here's the US FCC's info on junk faxes http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unwantedfaxes .html Interesting that the business advertised is liable even if they didn't send the fax. But this doesn't really help. Since the senders are scumbags, one can't be surprised that they don't follow the rules. Why couldn't software scan received faxes for telltale signs of junk such as "Cancun", "vacation", "To all Employees", and trash them as we do with email filters?

"parse it as written" doesn't help resolve the legitimate linguistic ambiguity

There is no "legitimate linguistic ambiguity." Here's the 13th:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Now here it is again, but put in mundane terms so your mind won't try to confuse you, and you can stop trying to confuse everyone else:

Neither jam nor jelly, except as a reward for chores the child shall have been confirmed to have completed, shall be applied to bread within this household, or at grandma's.

You going to argue jam cannot be used as a reward? Of course not. It's plain English. Interpreting it any other way than the obvious way is the act of an illiterate, or a sophist.

Now, it may well be that the current crop of puppet courts and their legions of tame shysters has decreed that the 13th doesn't mean what it clearly says. That's not a good thing, as we see with the inversion of the commerce clause. It ought to be interpreted as written, thrown the hell out, and replaced with whatever they think it means, if indeed society wants it to mean what they're trying to say it means.

Right now, it means they own you. It means they can do anything they want with you, and by George, that's pretty much how they behave, so again, whatever the shysters are saying is pretty bloody irrelevant in fact as well.

Name me one thing you can do with property that the government can't do with a convicted criminal in prison. They can kill you, or have you killed, that is, dispose of you, that happens all the time. They can move you from here to there, essentially handing you off to another slaveholder or institution full of them, and they can make such moves based on monetary gain. They can trade your warm body for another. They can release you early, if you behave. They can make you do any task, either directly, or indirectly by taking privileges from your fellow inmates, who will force you to comply. They can beat you or have you beaten. They completely control your meals, your medical care (or lack of it) your communications, your ability to see your family, your sex life, they eliminate your political self entirely, you are forced to live in horrible conditions, which can be made more horrible at any time at their whim, they control your reading materials and are just as likely to fill your hovel with propaganda such as religious tripe as they are not. They can keep you beyond your sentence. Forever, if they so decide. They can (and do) take away your children. They can put you on a public list of those to watch out for. They can ensure you're deprived of the right to carry arms. They can see to it that you are mutilated. They can, and do, take your property. They've even taken the trouble to make sure that some people cannot ever find a home, even if they were released. Whipping? Sure, you can be whipped. You can be beaten to death, or all manner of other mistreatments that don't quite get you there. Your life isn't worth a plugged nickel to them. Is your hang-up with the fact that it doesn't matter what color your skin is? I assure you, that's no factor in slavery. Finally, as to treatment in general, there were many slaves in the South who were treated better overall as compared to our prisoners, and very few who were treated worse.

also, i'm curious about this "half-million dollar fine for a curse word" claim. cite?

Here's one for $357,500.00, here's the legislation for the $500,000 fines, already through the house, the senate is next ...and you should read

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 Sherffs 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/wiretap 2510_2522.htm :

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap 2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA270 1_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_04/47 cfr25_04.html,
subpart D

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.401.htm ,
E

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.501.htm,
or F

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.600.htm
of part 74

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr74_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_04/47 cfr74_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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11 is ruled by
part 15

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr15_04.html.]

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 Sherffs 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/wiretap 2510_2522.htm :

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap 2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA270 1_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_04/47 cfr25_04.html,
subpart D

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.401.htm ,
E

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.501.htm,
or F

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47 cfr74.600.htm
of part 74

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr74_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_04/47 cfr74_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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11 is ruled by
part 15

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47 cfr15_04.html.]

RADAR is extremely powerful transmission, requiring large, specialized vacuum tubes to create the necessary high frequency/high power transmission.

By way of example, OHSA requirements backed by law prohibit any civilian or military from being within the beam area dozens to hundreds of meters from certain RADAR transmitters operating in certain modes (eg aircraft landing assistance in low visibility conditions). Those same rules, on the other hand, allows humans to be within a few feet of the beam of a cell tower operating with all channels transmitting at maximum allowable power, an extremely unlikely extreme case operating condition according to the FCC (the beam will be narrow and parallel to the ground; you would have to be hovering above the ground. Yet military personnel get burns from RADAR while in tents 50 meters away when a sweep of a fraction of a second goes across their backsides). I think you're reaching here.

An excellent overview of the health effects of RF transmission can be found in the paper cited below.

For reference (pdf, 680 pages):
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volu mes/occ_health/OHch15.pdf

FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/cellpcs.html

I went to the FCC website.

"Section 22.925 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 22, provides that cellular telephones installed in, or carried aboard airplanes, balloons, or any other type of aircraft, must not be operated while the aircraft is off the ground."

It doesn't destiguish between types of aircraft. Furthermore it mentions balloons. I guess you can't use your cell phone unless you're feet are touching the ground.

Your pilot is commiting a crime.

Interestingly enough AirCell, Inc. has been excluded.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=ope rations_1&id=cellular

I don't think you're the first to be thinking along those lines. Corporations have been making attempts to restrict what types of media can play on a computer, under what terms, to the point of Sony's installing rootkits on its customers' computers. On the hardware side, the Trusted Computing concept helps limit users' anonymity. In politics, the free world is toying with laws requiring monitoring of innocent Net users to fight terrorism/porn/drugs, and countries like China are doing massive censorship. In looking at other hardware, we know that there's at least one US-government-mandated design feature -- the V-Chip for televisions -- and supposedly the Secret Service has subverted several brands of printer. Japan has even issued some draft guidelines for robot regulation.

What we're seeing is a convergence of trends towards locking down computers, making it illegal to build or sell a machine with the full power and freedom of a Turing Machine. Some argue (Okay, it's not a great source; just did a quick search) that restrictions like this are equivalent to Soviet Russian restrictions on the use of photocopiers.

The various restrictions being placed on computer users for various reasons threaten our use of an important tool, and are oppressive and insulting. Even if you personally are a savvy computer user, are you prepared (based on your proposal) to be charged a fee, photographed, fingerprinted, licensed, monitored, and otherwise treated like a criminal, because you weren't content with the toys your government allows lesser geeks to use?

Yep. The coverage of even a small, low-powered VHF radio increases dramatically when operated from an aircraft.

In the U.S., Class A FM broadcasting stations are limited to a power of 6,000 watts at a maximum antenna height of 100m. Higher antennas are allowed if the power is reduced to compensate. At an antenna elevation of 600m, power must be reduced to only 150 watts (?!) to achieve the same distance coverage. Translate those figures to a cell phone with a rated power of no more than 3 watts, and you're talking about limiting power to 0.08 watt at 600m.

Of course, commercial aircraft fly a LOT higher than 600m!

The cellular network has far more subscribers than it has channels. To work, it depends on the ability to reuse a channel throughout the service area. If I place a phone call from my home 40km northwest of Nashville, the same channel can be reused in downtown Nashville, and on the city's west side, and in Donelson, and Brentwood, and Smyrna, etc., etc... My phone, about 1.2m off the ground, has a range of only about 6km.

If I place that call from an airplane flying 8,000m above my home, every base station in the greater Nashville area can receive my signals. Now, "my" channel cannot be reused at all.

If it were just me, that wouldn't be a problem. If it were, say, 10% of the passengers on each flight - well, I don't think it's hard to see how that could use up all available channels in a hurry. New channels aren't cheap. Nextel is paying to replace almost *all* the microwave remote broadcast equipment in use by U.S. TV stations, so they can free up some remote broadcast spectrum for use as cellular-telephone channels.

Here's an idea: allow calls from aircraft, but allow cellular providers to charge enough extra for airborne calls to cover their costs in adding more channels. I'll bet after the next billing cycle, the number of calls made from aircraft would plummet!

Take just a minute to let him know that you do *NOT* want to hear losers yack all flight long on their cellphones, because you're worried you may punch them in the face. Tell him you're worried terrorists could use cellphones on board to coordinate terrorist acts on the plane. Tell him you support the national association of flight attendants in their desire to ban cellphone usage on board. The address is: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

Agreed. If the FCC allowed the company to transmit 1 Watt, which I doubt, then the power would immediately spread throughout the room and beyond. There is no way to keep the power focused unless both the sending and receiving antenna is close to the size of one wavelength, at least, an unacceptable size. And it would certainly not be acceptable to focus the power, because of concerns about health. (At 900 MHz, the wavelength is 33.4 centimeters, about 1 foot. If you don't live in the U.S., you may need to know that the FCC is the U.S. government agency that regulates electromagnetic transmissions.)

Question: If this is an April Fools joke, it is the most elaborate one I've seen. Is it a joke or is it fraud? I can't imagine Philips allowing the company name to be used to advertise an April Fools joke.

It's a tragedy when otherwise intelligent people play video games instead of learning about the world around them.

Error - sorry meant to say, this is not a response to the release of the 360 elite.... here's a link to the filing: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/ret rieve.cgi?attachment_id=764216&native_or_pdf=pdf

I don't think there's any regulation stating 911 has to arrive as fast as other calls, only that it's illegal not to provide 911 service.

Apparently, this is all the FCC requires VOIP providers do: ( http://www.voip911.gov/ )
* Deliver all 911 calls to the local emergency call center;
* Deliver the customer's call back number and location information where the emergency call center is capable of receiving it; and
* Inform their customers of the capabilities and limitations of their VoIP 911 service.

In fact, one thing the FCC stresses that VOIP providers inform their customers of is that "VoIP service may not work during a power outage, or when the Internet connection fails or becomes overloaded." ( http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/voip911.html ) There are no guarentees of QOS of any sort on 911 calls apparently, down to 'reaching the call center.'

And if Vonage is put on the slow lanes, Verizon could argue that the lines are simply overloaded and Verizon has the superiour infrastructure.

My take on it at least.

The maximum power for the 2.4GHz 802.11x is 100mW.

Here is my citation, right out of the FCC regulations, 15.247. (And here it is on the FCC site itself.) :

Sec. 15.247 Omni-Directional Antennas (b) The maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator shall not exceed the following: (1) For frequency hopping systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz or 5725-5850 MHz band and for all direct sequence systems: 1 watt.

For the 2.4 GHz band, for point to point use, you can use a higher gain (more directional) antennna, but you have to reduce your power by 1 dB for each 3 dB of gain your antenna has over 6 dBi. For the 5.8 GHz band, you can use higher gain antennas with no power reduction for point to point connections.

I see how Cisco's documentation says 100 mW, but I'm not sure what that's about, because that's not what the FCC says. Perhaps they're referring to other countries -- I think the limit is now 100 mW in much (all?) of Europe now, for example. Perhaps that's what Cisco is referring to -- they want to make gear that can be sold outside of the US as well.)

Your antenna gain analogy took a few too many liberties. You really can't compare a dipole to an incandescent bulb, and a high gain antenna to a more efficient florescent bulb. In both cases, a good antenna is pretty close to 100% efficient for transmitting, low or high gain. The difference is that the high gain antenna sends most of the signal in one direction, and a low gain antenna (like a dipole, but a dipole does have 3 dBi of gain) sends it all over the place. A 100 watt spotlight vs. a 100 watt bare bulb is a much better analogy -- both emit the same amount of light (assuming similar efficiencies) but the spotlight sends it mostly in one direction, and the bare bulb sends it in all directions. As for which is better, it depends on what you need -- high gain antennas are not automatically better than low gain ones.

Unfortunately I no longer have a link to where to find it, but some Googling for some of the phrases quoted above should turn up a few copies.

Sure the U.S. Federal government spends large amounts of money on some mind-boggling things, but this isn't one of them. They can make far far more than that selling the freed-up spectrum. At some point the foregone 'interest' (read debt avoidance) makes this buyout worth it, rather than just waiting for analog TV to die on it's own.

The crazy thing is that they could just end analog TV and force everyone to buy one of these boxes, but there would be a huge outcry, so instead they give everyone a check that came from their tax dollars anyway, adding inefficiency but avoiding (irrational) political backlash.

::goes to register his own cell number there::

Actually at some point in the future they would be required for that 13 inch tv/vcr combo that I keep in my kitchen.


At that time, the tech will be entrenched enough so the tuner does not add $200 to the price of a $125 tv set. That is when I will start replacing the smaller sets. If you check the FCC website, they have the deadlines set for what size set requires a tuner.

Deep link is here showing deadlines for 13 inch to 24 inch TV to include a digital tuner.

PDF aleart.. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ FCC-05-190A1.pdf

I should be able to start picking up small sets for the motorhome soon if the price is within reason. There should be a fire sale on small analog flatscreen TV sets soon as the deadline nears.

What gets me is that we are 3 days from the March 1, 2007 date when every device with an analog tuner, must have a digital one (see "Digital Receiver Availability and FCC Tuner Requirements"). That means not only all TVs (even 13" and below), but also VCRs, DVD recorders, etc. But where are they?

Xesdeeni

Actually there is support for increasing the speed to rural areas. http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/ruralvision/index .html However, I would tend to believe the reason for not increasing the broadband speeds is more politically motivated. These companies want to restrict access on their connection to allow them to generate more revenue. Giving end users more bandwidth would weaken their arguments against network neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

. In the US, in many cases it is illegal for any company other than the local monopoly to run lines to a person's house. That's pretty bloody far from a free market.

Before you go spouting off, it helps to do your homework.

I used to work for an ISP, and unless things have dramatically changed in the last 5 years, the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) are required to keep the phone service side of the company separate from the ISP side. (of course, as they offer package deals for phone/internet/tv in some markets, I don't know how much the rules have changed).

As a line provider, they fall under the FCC definition of 'Telecommunications Carrier':

TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER.--The term ''telecommunications carrier'' means any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services (as defined in section 226). A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services, except that the Commission shall determine whether the provision of fixed and mobile satellite service shall be treated as common carriage.

As a common carrier, they're regulated by Title II of that act, which states:

SEC. 202. [47 U.S.C. 202] DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENCES.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

(b) Charges or services, whenever referred to in this Act, include charges for, or services in connection with, the use of common carrier lines of communication, whether derived from wire or radio facilities, in chain broadcasting or incidental to radio communication of any kind.

(c) Any carrier who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall forfeit to the United States the sum of $6,000 for each such offense and $300 for each and every day of the continuance of such offense.

Although the ILECs are a government regulated monopoly, they are required to set tariffs so that others can purchase line services from them, and they are required to be non-discriminatory. Personally, I don't like that the ILECs are selling port services (ie, connection to the internet, vs. the physical line to the premesis), as I feel it gives them an unfair advantage. They are in fact two seperate services that are necessary for a connection to the internet, and that most end-users never see, as they only pay a single bill to their ISP (unless they're on dial-up, but then they rarely think of things in these terms)

specifically, you're referring to this FCC rule

it essentially says you can put a 1m or less dish anywhere you own or rent, but you can't put it anywhere you don't own or rent (so if you're on the wrong side of the apartment, you may not have a choice).

not only TV and Satellite dishes, but radio and wireless antennas as well (so called fixed signal antennae).

Has anyone considered contacting the FCC's Office of Inspector General about this issue?

OIGs are around to prevent "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse", I'm sure this falls in there somewhere.
And believe me, OIGs are not lapdogs to their respective organizations, I worked in one and our Agency wasn't fond of us...;)

FCC OIG
General Description of U.S. OIGs

Here is the rules fact sheet etc: Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule

I had the same problem that you had. All I did was print the page out, and send this to them anonymously. I also made copies and put them in areas like the laundry areas, and anywhere that the tenants congregated. It worked. Like over night, the Landlord had a change of tune. They got all nice, and the tenants had a choice. They dropped putting the cable only rule in our rental contracts too. You probably know already you have the right to file a grievance with the FCC. But please note, most never go that far, as my landlord pointed out they never knew about the rule. They thought it was kind of a myth made up by the tenants, and most tenants never knew where the fact sheet or law existed online. Or where to call etc.