Slashdot Mirror

http://www.fcc.gov/foia/#typesnot

This lists the 9 exemptions allowed for refusing FOIA requests. Bureaucratic obstinance doesn't seem to be on the list.

How exactly could a merger of Sirius and XM Radio keep others out of the market? It's not like they can prevent competitors from launching satellites, or buying bandwidth on someone else's satellite. Consumers will always be free to purchase a new receiver if need be.

e911 mandates that your phone company can pinpoint your phone to within 50 meters. how do they do it? with AGPS. the iPhone probably has neutered GPS in it. just like every other new phone today.

This document explains the technology by which cable providers could allow competitive
devices to access "basic" interactive services (i.e., switched digital ("SD"), video on demand
("VOD"), and impulse pay per view ("IPPV") content) without requiring that such devices include
the OpenCable Application Platform ("OCAP") middleware. It also describes the technology by
which the proprietary metadata or navigation data, delivered by the cable provider in conjunction
with its video content, could be translated into a common format that could be understood and used
by the competitive device.

We propose that the method described herein be implemented for all current separable
security technologies prescribed by FCC regulations and any subsequent replacement technologies.1
In addition, to ensure the consumer benefits of common reliance, cable providers should be required
to use this same schema and interface in a substantial proportion of any devices they lease or
otherwise provide to subscribers.

To "assign and/or transfer to an unaffiliated third party" all of its 2.5 GHZ spectrum currently licensed to BellSouth within one year of the merger closing date.

Here:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/e911.html

    The FCC doesn't require GPS, it just requires that the carrier be able to locate phones to within a certain degree of accuracy. Most carriers have chosen to do this using GPS chips. They aren't neccessarily active all the time - only when you call 911. A modern cell phone goes into "EMERGENCY MODE" when you call 911 (at least that's my experience with two different handsets). The phone may or may not allow you to access the GPS functions outside of the emergency locator function.

    Cingular and T-Mobile do *not* put GPS chips in all their handsets, instead relying on the old cell tower triangulation method.

    So the GP wasn't quite right, but close. :-)

-David

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-269012A1.pdf:
> With today's elimination of the Morse code exam requirements,
> the FCC concluded that the disparity between the operating
> privileges of Technician Class licensees and Technician Plus
> Class licensees should not be retained. Therefore, the FCC,
> in today's action, afforded Technician and Technician Plus
> licensees identical operating privileges.

It would appear at the effective date of the order no-code tech licenses will have full tech+code privileges.

Careful with the encryption feature. Using it is an FCC violation.

Lots of people dislike the FCC content regulations, like this ham, for example.

The FCC is an independent agency that answers to Congress, not the president.

Wow, thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest thing I've read all day.

FWIW, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and then confirmed by congresscritters. 3/2 split by political party.

Source? The FCC website The congressional oversight is a joke.

See the FCC Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas. In particular, restrictions cannot require that expensive landscaping screen relatively unobtrusive DBS antennas

Although you didn't say whether your inability to have a dish was a result of geography/location or a landlord, if it's the latter, you might be able to show them that they cannot legally prohibit you from installing a small-dish system. A lot of landlords don't know this, and think that they can just tell tenants that they can't put one up. Unless you're living in a historic area, or there are particular safety reasons for not installing one, you have the right to put one up. The landlord can say that you can't drill into or damage the building, so you might need to get creative, but they can't prohibit one altogether.

This applies to dishes smaller than 1m in diameter and conventional TV antennas smaller than 1m in diagonal measurement. (Sadly it doesn't apply to amateur radio antennas, but the FCC has always treated amateurs like its red-headed stepchildren so I can't say I'm surprised.) More info and the actual rules are here. Alternately you can Google "OTARD".

Interestingly, it also applies to home-owners associations (HUAs) -- which can be even more of a pain-in-the-ass than landlords -- and local municipal and state regulations. It pretty much trumps everything.

Although you didn't say whether your inability to have a dish was a result of geography/location or a landlord, if it's the latter, you might be able to show them that they cannot legally prohibit you from installing a small-dish system. A lot of landlords don't know this, and think that they can just tell tenants that they can't put one up. Unless you're living in a historic area, or there are particular safety reasons for not installing one, you have the right to put one up. The landlord can say that you can't drill into or damage the building, so you might need to get creative, but they can't prohibit one altogether.

This applies to dishes smaller than 1m in diameter and conventional TV antennas smaller than 1m in diagonal measurement. (Sadly it doesn't apply to amateur radio antennas, but the FCC has always treated amateurs like its red-headed stepchildren so I can't say I'm surprised.) More info and the actual rules are here. Alternately you can Google "OTARD".

Interestingly, it also applies to home-owners associations (HUAs) -- which can be even more of a pain-in-the-ass than landlords -- and local municipal and state regulations. It pretty much trumps everything.

1) Instead of spending a half hour, an hour or whatever wading through automated support and going through various levels of customer service trying to resolve an issue simply fill out a complaint form on the FCC's website. The form is available here. Within a few days a representative from the phone company will call you and politely ask what they can do to take care of this problem. I have used this succesfully several times in the past. I think once you get the FCC involved the phone companies are generally much more interested in resolving the issue quickly and to your satisfaction. Of course this probably won't do much if your problem arose in Canada.

2) If you can't get your problem resolved and want to switch providers there is a way to weasel out of your contract with no obligation. This is absolutely the last thing the phone company will ever tell you and most people aren't even aware it's available. Tell them you moved to an area where you no longer have service and they are required, by law, to terminate your contract for you. I myself have never used this but I have several friends that have done it succesfully. Some providers may require you to provide some proof of relocation, like an apartment lease or something. Not that I'm advocating this [ahem], but many apartment companies post their leasing agreements on their websites where you can simply print it out, fill it in and fax it to the phone company.

Although they would be tested as a system, the rules for each piece would still be different. For example, in my Wayne-Dalton system, the remote transmitter has its own FCC ID: KJ8HHT-3720. You can see from the block diagram on the FCC site that it only includes the transmitter, not the receiver. It would be difficult to argue that the receiver isn't a digital device - anything with pulses over 9000 per second, and "using digital techniques" qualifies - how do you think it decodes the transmitter key codes? Just because it has a motor drive doesn't mean it's not a digital system.

Phase II E911 Rules

The FCC's Phase II E911 rules:

Require wireless carriers, within six months of a valid request by a PSAP, to begin providing more precise location information to PSAPs, specifically, the latitude and longitude of the caller.

This information must meet FCC accuracy standards - generally, it must be accurate to within 50-300 meters (depending on the type of technology used)."

Link to the full text at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911sr vc.html

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf 6.4Ghz is in the frequency for satellites, maybe they figure 5 feet for the power is short enough.

It's the same debate as network neutrality. The telcos do not want to be common carriers any more, and have given up the legal protections in order to be media companies. In August 2005, the FCC gave in:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-260435A1.pdf

After lobbying by telcos like Verizon, they reclassified internet connections as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services", and ruled that common carrier principles do not apply.

What Verizon did was completely legal. Common Carriers went away over a year ago.

Wrong

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

No. The landlord cannot regulate Wifi.

Actually (if you RTFFCC'sD) the FCC asserts that only the FCC has the authority regulate unlicensed spectrum (such as 802.11). The landlord cannot put any terms in their lease that will 'regulate' the use of those airwaves. That's why Massport can't require Continental to give up free access. (Actual decision here)

BTW, I think that your landlord cannot prevent you from using a satellite dish. They may however be able to restrict you from mounting the dish on their physical property.

It always fascinates me when people spout such utter krap.
I mean, do you ever read anything besides Linux Journal? Please, do yourself a favor and research topics before you post.

Where you're going with this statement:
"more companies providing television media now than there were 20 years ago". What do you mean by "television media". Can you be any more vague?

If you had been paying attention to media in the last ten years, notably the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Media Ownership Rules changes of 2003, you would see that the content, the substance of what is being delivered is governed and controlled by a smaller and smaller group of people. Do you understand this? If not, please don't waste our time with your trivial bullshit.

I submitted this article. I made a mistake and confused Michael Copps, FCC commissioner, for the Chairman Kevin Martin. Thus, the entire premise of the submission that the FCC is shifting policy away from what had been set in place by former Chairman Michael Powell is WRONG.

I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.

I submitted this article. I made a mistake and confused Michael Copps, FCC commissioner, for the Chairman Kevin Martin. Thus, the entire premise of the submission that the FCC is shifting policy away from what had been set in place by former Chairman Michael Powell is WRONG.

I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.

(rolls eyes) sonofabitch!!!

You are absolutely right! Here is Commissioner Copps' biography page.

Well, I got that writeup very wrong. Slashdot editors: _please_ fix the title and text so as to remove FCC Chairman, and instead shift it to FCC commissioner. Or, conversely, since the premise of this story is factually inaccurate, just go ahead and wipe it.

(rolls eyes) sonofabitch!!!

You are absolutely right! Here is Commissioner Copps' biography page.

Well, I got that writeup very wrong. Slashdot editors: _please_ fix the title and text so as to remove FCC Chairman, and instead shift it to FCC commissioner. Or, conversely, since the premise of this story is factually inaccurate, just go ahead and wipe it.

Indeed; the only potentially iffy aspect is that public institutions use these filters. However, surely the complaint would be against those institutions, not the filtering companies. The institutions can attempt to persuade the companies to modify their filters, but ultimately it would be up to them to see that the measures they implement comply with the relevant laws, as they are the ones bound by them.

Considering that the federal Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA)requires the filters in order for many of these public institutions to receive federal funding, it creates an interesting conundrum, don't you think?

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

Where can I apply to get a free digital to analogue signal converter for my TV set [were I an American]? I hadn't heard of this plan of the FCC's.

I understood the old channels would be sold and/or not allowed for existing television signals. Is that not the case?

The original question did mention specifically SDI or YUV-Component video signals. I'm assuming the broadcast will still be analog.

"LPTV stations are limited to an effective radiated power of 3 kilowatts (VHF) and 150 kilowatts (UHF). There are no limits on transmitter output power and on antenna height..."Low Power Television (LPTV) Service

Nothing Is 'Big Time' About Channel 13 While a story like this make fun reading, it is not typical of the product an LPTV station must deliver to remain commercially viable.

So groups like the ESRB are not only burdened with the task of supplying a ratings system, they must also ensure that the market is educated enough to make effective use of that system.

Satellite TV goes out every time it rains? That's one the cable companies LOVE to use. I was a DirecTV subscriber for 6 years and the signal went out TWICE here in stormy, rainy Florida.

The cable companies are grasping for straws because satellite is a wonderful service, cheaper, higher quality signal and a knowlegdable, friendly staff.

The apartment complex I live in dosen't allow us to have satellite dishes. Even though the FCC told them we're allowed to have them...

At the risk of introducing facts into a Slashdot thread...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#UNLICENSED

Unlicensed operation on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands is permitted for some extremely low powered devices covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Section 15.239, and the July 24, 1991 Public Notice. On the AM broadcast band, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR Sections 15.207, 15.209, 15.219, and 15.221. These devices must accept any interference caused by any other operation, which may further limit the effective service range. For more information on Part 15 devices, please see OET Bulletin No. 63 ("Understanding the FCC Regulations for Low-Power, Non-Licensed Transmitters"). Questions not answered by this Bulletin can be directed to the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, Customer Service Branch, at the Columbia, Maryland office, phone (301) - 362 - 3000, e-mail LabHelp@fcc.gov.

Also, in 2000 the FCC created a new class of FM licenses that operate at low power (up to 100 watts with a 3.5 mile range):
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lpfm/index.html

To obtain a low power FM License, it must be owned by a non-profit educational entity. There are currently 754 of these stations in operation. Want to operate a low power FM "pirate" station? Create a non-profit entity, and hire a radio engineer to properly build the station and sign off on the FCC license so it doesn't interfere with any existing licensed stations.

But you can't make any money doing this... but your local church could fill up the FM band with "pirate" stations teaching you about Jesus - Be Healed Sinners! Happy now? :)

At the risk of introducing facts into a Slashdot thread...

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#UNLICENSED

Unlicensed operation on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands is permitted for some extremely low powered devices covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Section 15.239, and the July 24, 1991 Public Notice. On the AM broadcast band, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters). See 47 CFR Sections 15.207, 15.209, 15.219, and 15.221. These devices must accept any interference caused by any other operation, which may further limit the effective service range. For more information on Part 15 devices, please see OET Bulletin No. 63 ("Understanding the FCC Regulations for Low-Power, Non-Licensed Transmitters"). Questions not answered by this Bulletin can be directed to the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, Customer Service Branch, at the Columbia, Maryland office, phone (301) - 362 - 3000, e-mail LabHelp@fcc.gov.

Also, in 2000 the FCC created a new class of FM licenses that operate at low power (up to 100 watts with a 3.5 mile range):
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lpfm/index.html

To obtain a low power FM License, it must be owned by a non-profit educational entity. There are currently 754 of these stations in operation. Want to operate a low power FM "pirate" station? Create a non-profit entity, and hire a radio engineer to properly build the station and sign off on the FCC license so it doesn't interfere with any existing licensed stations.

But you can't make any money doing this... but your local church could fill up the FM band with "pirate" stations teaching you about Jesus - Be Healed Sinners! Happy now? :)

The Morse code test is no longer required for the lowest level of amateur license, Technician Class. It is, however, required if you want a higher level license that grants you additional frequencies. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=abo ut_3&id=amateur Also, note that an amateur license does not allow you to "broadcast", i.e. transmit only.

Not exactly. Network neutrality has been around for a long time, however the term "network neutrality" is new.

Net neutrality has existed ever since the dawn of the Internet, but it was called the common carrier laws and it originally applied to carriers of parcels as well as telecom companies. Since Internet was run over telephone lines, common carrier laws provided neutrality until the August 2005 changes that states that internet services are not telecom services. Simultaneously, the FCC added a series of network neutrality regulations that are not as strong as the original common carrier laws.

Really, this is about reinstating the network neutrality laws that we already had.

Depending on what country you are in your options may be different. In the US, a rental agreement that prevents you from using any antenna is a prohibited restriction and can be preempted under FCC rules, if the antenna is small enough, and is a "customer-end" antenna. I.E. You could subscribe to a wireless ISP, if available, provided you have control over an area such as a balcony where you can place the antenna.

Specific rental restriction may be preempted under FCC Rules that prevent a renter from stopping tenants from setting up antennae for transmitting and receiving at the customer-end to access a fixed wireless internet service, direct broadcast, etc, see the FCC Fact sheet.

If you have exclusive control of an area, they may have broken the law by making too sweeping a restricting that prevented you from operating an AP in the first place -- reasonable safety limitations are ok, but they can't prohibit signal reception and transmission by consumer-end equipment.

The FCC provides the wireless frequencies used by APs as unlicensed spectrum, so long as your use of the equipment follows FCC rules, the FCC is the sole regulator in this matter, private property owners cannot restrict spectrum, and the devices function without harmful effects such as RF Interference or human RF exposure beyond the established limits, you and your device has a right to utilize these public frequencies. In theory, you could get a special license to a dedicated frequency, setup special wireless equipment to operate at that frequency, and carry your access in from a remote site.

Your computers are personal property, the university has no legal right to directly restrict how your computer may connect to the internet -- they can't prevent you from subscribing to a third party service, legally, but it may be difficult to do against their wishes, since they don't have to provide the facilities you might need to get a third party service in, either. I.E. You might need to get an additional phone line or special leased circuit in the building, and up to your room, somehow.

They can't control who you are allowed to call on a cell phone, or when you may use a cell phone in your room (these are also things that they cannot legally restrict), also, the cell phones use spectrum licensed to the mobile providers. You may be able to use a cell phone as a method to connect to the internet, through a data service, the University will have no knowledge of any private arrangements and services you receive with your mobile providers.

(From their website: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html)

How to Contact the FCC

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

United States Postal Service First-Class Mail, Express Mail & Priority Mail

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Here is the complete list of commissioners and when they were appointed. Please note each of the appointments past Jan 20th, 2001. Now, who set FCC policy? Was it Democratic commissioners or Republican? You figure it out.

And quit selecting specific facts out of context in order to misrepresent the obvious. It's both disingenuous and easily refuted.

Fascinating.

The draft report and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's response to Senator Boxer are linked on the
FCC's website.

Fascinating.

The draft report and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's response to Senator Boxer are linked on the
FCC's website.

Fascinating.

The draft report and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's response to Senator Boxer are linked on the
FCC's website.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267221 A1.html
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266089 A1.html

Watch out if you buy one; they can easily create interference to other users in the 800 MHz band, like public safety radio systems, and the FCC takes a rather dim view of this - see the FCC notices sent to some unlucky users above.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-267221 A1.html
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-266089 A1.html

Watch out if you buy one; they can easily create interference to other users in the 800 MHz band, like public safety radio systems, and the FCC takes a rather dim view of this - see the FCC notices sent to some unlucky users above.

Really. It's true. However, in spite of the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court have been curtailing the FCC's mandated oversight capabilities (much less oversight it has not been given) for years, somehow one statement by one person means that there will soon be a serious threat to our ability to freely upload crappy videos to YouTube.

The FCC would have to be given this mandate by Congress, and given current political realities, I find that highly improbable. Chalk this one up to bureaucratic bombast. Everybody wants to rule the world, but nobody is going to let the FCC do it.

When you take a picture with some cell phones, they make a loud noise that you can't disable, right? (Hm, my current one doesn't.*) As I understand it, this "feature" was added after people -- not the phones' buyers -- complained of being secretly photographed. Also consider that the e911 system is a mandatory feature usable to find you within 300m. With those and the growth of for-someone-else's-convenience technologies like DRM, it seems likely that your next phone will also have features that make targeted advertising and automatic monitoring easier.

* (Sounds made mandatory in South Korea and Japan.)

Also, the National Association of the Mute is suing AT&T because telephones do not adequately provide for the communication needs of the non-speaking.

Your analogy falls apart. Deaf people can tunnel text over a voice channel and have been able to do so for decades, even back when AT&T had a monopoly on telephones. It's called a teletypewriter. Nowadays there's even a relay service to translate between voice and TTY modes.

Isn't that a violation of section 305 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act?

Or is video-on-demand somehow immune to that act now?

You can send a complaint to mailto:fccinfo@fcc.gov

Maybe since part 15 rules say that if the amp and antenna used in the system are not approved by the manufacturer it isn't part 15 compilant? (They can always get it certified, otherwise it is illegal)
(using an unoffical antenna with out getting the system certified is illegal, part 15.204. The amp can only be used with the system as a whole is certified by the FCC) (Nice pdf from the FCC that mentions the whole system bit, quoting the relevant parts (answering some myths about part 15 and how it applies to WiFi)

IANAL, but:

Rather than ranting like a lunatic, don't pay it. Verizon cannot legally drop your phone service if you don't pay that 3rd-party charge. The 3rd party has to come after you to collect, which they won't do if the charge is fraudulent. Also, take 2 minutes and file a complaint with the FCC.

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/information .cfm?doc_id=1168

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/news/080702fraudwk3.html