Slashdot Mirror

For the curious, the actual fcc guidelines on permissible RF exposure are here. They seem to be saying that at 2.4 Ghz it's OK to subject a random bystander to 1 milliwatt per square centimeter averaged over 30 minutes, or to subject yourself to 5mW/cm^2 averaged over 6 minutes.

1) Chances are, if you are a geek, you CAN afford a big honkin plot of land somewhere. I bought 36 acres outside of Research Triangle Park for less than it would cost to buy one acre INSIDE of the Triangle. I have a bit of a commute (about one hour), but then I live at a place where I can pursue my own ideas of appropriate living. I can make my own diesel, grow my own food, set up an ordnance bunker, paint my trees yellow, set up giant satellite dishes and windmills, farm pit bulls, whatever. (note I don't necessarily do a lot of the things on this list, but I could, and some of my neighbors do)

2) Smaller dishes are protected. If your HOA tells you that you can't put up a DirecTV dish, tell them to blow it out their ass and refer them to the FCC. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html. This offers no protection for larger dishes (unless you live in alaska).

The first photo on this page confirms something I've alwasy suspected about the DS and never really liked about it. There's a lot of empy space. IMO, empty space on a portable is a bad thing. It should either be filled up with some more good stuff or eliminated. I think that's one of the reasons the ipods are so popular; they have all the stuff you need, and none of the stuff you don't.

TW

Photos here. (PDF format)

What was it I heard recently about the FCC auctioning off a bit of "prime real-estate" in bandwidth-land (adjoining or neighboring on the portion of the spectrum currently in use by the wireless telecoms) so the government could move all their wireless telecom traffic to some obscure (and supposedly more secure?) portion of the spectrum (but still not "subspace" *frowns*) -- was supposed to generate bazillions of dollars (plenty, anyway, to cover the government'$ expenditure for their move) and provide more "elbow room" for such stuff as wireless broadband, etc.?
 
There's this site, but I don't want to have to roll up my pants and go wading right now... anybody else remember this? (I could've sworn I heard Paul Harvey mention it one day while at lunch...)

# FireWire usage across the industry is increasing, not decreasing

Not as a percentage of market it isn't. There's no evidence that its growth is outpacing that of alternatives in the same market, which is a critical factor in the market.

"Alternatives"? What alternatives? And all I said was that FireWire usage is increasing. It is. I don't have any figures on percentages. You also must have missed that fact that the High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance (HANA) has picked IEEE-1394b as its primary standard to clean up the home HD networking mess. This means more and more equipment that interact with HD equipment from both a video and audio perspective will feature FireWire.

# FireWire is featured on all currently shipping Intel-based Macs

Of the two PowerPC Mac models replaced by Intel versions, Firewire has been significantly downgraded in one of them from what it was in the PowerPC equivalent. The other is unchanged and was an older, seven year old, standard anyway.

Yes. And this was a tradeoff because:

1. One is a portable machine.

2. One is a consumer machine.

And if you call going from 1 FireWire 800 port and 1 FireWire 400 port to 1 FireWire 400 port a "significant downgrade", when we have a representative sample of 2 machines at that, we probably have a different definition of "significant downgrade".

This was also a tradeoff because none of Intel's chipsets have FireWire 800 support, and Apple is trying to stay as vanilla as possible in terms of usage of Intel processors and support chipsets. Yes, it could have added its own chipset for FireWire 800 support, at the sacrifice of price, heat, space, design cost, and other factors. And for what? The extremely small penetration that FireWire 800 has? FireWire is still there. That's what is important.

# FireWire is increasingly used as the interface of choice on modern digital video and audio equipment

False. In the consumer market, modern digital video is moving to HDMI and was rarely, if ever, found in Firewire form. Modern digital audio has pretty much completely changed over to SPDIF. Firewire is pretty much only used for transfering video between DV cameras and computers outside of the commercial sector.

Nope. And I also should probably say "high end" in there, too. But again, you missed HANA. And since HANA's founding members include Charter Communications, Mitsubishi, NBC Universal, Samsung, Sun, ARM, Freescale, and Pulse-LINK, they'll definitely be a force in the industry.

And you also have forgotten that ALL HD set top boxes distributed to customers after July 1, 2005, MUST include a functional FireWire port, per FCC rulemaking. That's more and more FireWire out there every day, and FireWire is a transport that makes sense for simply handling data transport and control between many devices.

# FireWire is the transport mechanism used by all digital video (DV) and high definition digitial video (HDV) cameras and decks

The fact you said this means that you clearly didn't mean DV camera usage was to be included in the previous "fact". How many DVD players, video cassette recorders, high definition TVs, and TV receivers, available at regular chains like Best Buy, Circuit City, or even Radio Shack, have Firewire inputs or outputs again? This is the one fact that appears to be largely correct.

And DV/HDV cameras/decks is a fairly, um, huge marketplace, wouldn't you say?

And let's just pause here for a second - that so many people have settled for HDMI and S/PDIF is really unfortunate. I don't know if HANA will ultimately succeed, but they certainly have a lot of weight to throw behind fixing the current mess.

Even so, it ignores the move towards USB by many companies. Sony already treats Firewire as an option, not a standard feature

I thought it was common knowledge that many/most/(all?) cell phones have enabled GPS tracking technologies. It's part of the e911 efforts and was encouraged by the FCC http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/ to better pinpoint emergency callers' locations. Here's an article that I haven't read that seems to take a closer look at the situation: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-200 3/feature_koerner_julaug03.msp/

Why do people keep on insisting that ISPs are Common Carriers when they aren't? See the damn Wikipedia article: [...]

Or the actual FCC report to Congress on which that's based:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/ fcc98067.pdf

However, I think BS wants to have its cake and eat it too. They appear to want a monopoly on basic connectivity (which is MUCH more like a common carrier) AND they want to charge for enhanced services that are simply CARRIED over their network.

This is like a postal carrier demanding extra fees for transacting certain kinds of business through the post because it causes higher traffic.

If it was paid for, they are required by law to say so.

You are confusing FCC regulations banning radio payola with infomercials. The mouse piece is clearly a commercial masquerading as published content. This is the second Hexus link from Slashdot this week that screams advertisement.

Seth

This is an ultrawideband through-wall imaging system, and is an old technology that has been around for many years. Two of the many manufacturers are Time Domain [Flash!] and Camero.

Note that, while military radio emissions are regulated in the U.S. by the NTIA, U.S. civilian use of ultrawideband through-wall imaging systems is controlled by the FCC (by regulations established in April 2002 [pdf!]). 47 U.S.C. 15.510(5)(e) [pdf!] states that

Through-wall imaging systems operating under the provisions of this section shall bear thefollowing or similar statement in a conspicuous location on the device:

"Operation of this device is restricted to law enforcement, emergency rescue and firefighter personnel. Operation by any other party is a violation of 47 U.S.C. 301 and could subject the operator to serious legal penalties."

This is an ultrawideband through-wall imaging system, and is an old technology that has been around for many years. Two of the many manufacturers are Time Domain [Flash!] and Camero.

Note that, while military radio emissions are regulated in the U.S. by the NTIA, U.S. civilian use of ultrawideband through-wall imaging systems is controlled by the FCC (by regulations established in April 2002 [pdf!]). 47 U.S.C. 15.510(5)(e) [pdf!] states that

Through-wall imaging systems operating under the provisions of this section shall bear thefollowing or similar statement in a conspicuous location on the device:

"Operation of this device is restricted to law enforcement, emergency rescue and firefighter personnel. Operation by any other party is a violation of 47 U.S.C. 301 and could subject the operator to serious legal penalties."

• 1. Opt out (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs1aplus-cpni.htm )
• 2. Emails/call your local phone companies, and scream about it.
• 3. Ditto locateacell (http://locatecell.com/contact.html)
• 4. Complain to FCC (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html)
• 5. Write to your representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/. I'm sure *they* wouldn't want to see their records out in the public either!
• ...
• n. And we all profit from increased privacy

Not all the numbers in 555 exchange are guaranteed bogus any more. According to the FCC, it's just the 0100-0199 range.

There is an important issue being glossed over here: is the release of this information illegal or not?

The top article implies that it is illegal for the phone companies to share this data. They point to unscrupulous insiders, and acts of fraud on the part of private investigators and data miners.

But the information from EPIC and the FCC suggests a very different situation. According to these sites it is perfectly legal to share this data if the company adopts an "opt-out" policy and if the consumer has not exercised his right to opt-out. Well, of course most people have never heard of this and so they have not opted-out. Therefore it is completely legal for the companies to share your phone call lists!

I'm annoyed and frustrated that the press reports are getting this so wrong (as usual). By implying that the problem is a few illegal acts, necessarily commited furtively and relatively rarely, they hide the fact that this is a perfectly legal, above-board business which is presumably going along at a brisk rate selling everyone's call info!

Here is the FCC application for my 802.11b/g wireless router. At the bottom, it clearly states that it operates under FCC rule parts 15c, which indeed requires FCC certification of the device and not the user, but according to Title 47, part 15.5, "shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment."

I'll leave it to you to read the rest of that section, which confirms what I originally stated about interference to licensed users. Licensed users of the frequency are only responsible to not cause interference to other licensed users of that frequency, just like a broadcast radio station doesn't have to care if he interferes with those little FM transmitters that people plug their ipods into so they can listen on their car radio. An amateur radio license is no less valid than the license for your local top 40 radio station. And the authority to operate that little FM transmitter is the same authority for wi-fi routers and microwave ovens, with the same FCC certification requirements.

While technically a request to shut down must come from the FCC and a licensed user can only "ask nicely", just like enforcing the speed limit must come from a law enforcement officer, the fact is that the law is on the side of the licensed user.

Contrast this with the CB and family radio services, for example, which have frequencies specifically set aside for sole use by unlicensed users, with strict equipment specifications. That is what I would consider public spectrum.

There is nothing in section 97.313 that limits the power output to less than 1500 W in that band. However, I concede that there are other requirements for RF exposure, a "minimum necessary power" requirement, and other technical issues that probably limit it practically to 100 W or so. There are probably further restrictions somewhere in the code where unattended operation is concerned. A license is enough permission to use those bands. The only additional requirement needed to run 1500 W of power is a routine environmental evaluation which proves that humans won't be over-exposed (required for transmissions over 250 Watts in that band). The process of performing such an evaluation is a subject of the extra class amateur radio license exam. However, if it is shown that 1500 W was used where 1 W would have been sufficient, the licensee is subject to heavy fines, seizure of his equipment, and forfeiture of his license.

I'm not trumpeting my own horn or going on a power trip, just clearing up a common misconception that wi-fi frequencies are somehow reserved for wi-fi, and trying to present an interesting and extreme counter example. You can argue that wi-fi has become so ubiquitous that it deserves some protection from interference, and I would agree with you, but the current law makes no such guarantee, and it is indeed only through the voluntary cooperation of legitimate licensees of that spectrum (hams aren't the only ones) that lawful interference with wi-fi isn't widespread.

I apologize if I came off snobby, but consider that someone who has passed three increasingly difficult exams dealing with FCC regulations, and has years of experience and training in building and operating radio equipment in compliance with those regulations, has earned the right to speak with some authority on the subject. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but you might want to actually back it up with fact the next time you think you're breaking a power trip.

If it (censorship, warrantless eavesdropping, sophistry-based policymaking) is good enough for America, it's good enough for China.

What you're paying for is the ability to connect to a separate long-distance carrier. This charge keeps going up, even though the cost of providing bulk transport keeps going down.

Also, I remember how easy it was to mod a scanner in '93 to make it pick up cellphone signals -- just remove a single SMT resistor. This was the work of minutes. And voila -- full band reception.

So easily modded consumer goods (whatever that is) will be banned too.


To add to your comment..
That is exactly what they did with scanners. They went back and edited the law to include that the scanner must not be able to be easily modified. Here is a paste from a scanner faq:

In its simplest form, US Federal laws (Communications Act of 1934, Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Telecommunications Disclosure & Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, Digital Telephony Bill of 1994) make it illegal to :

1. Repeat what you hear to anyone but the transmitter or intended receiver of the transmission
2. Use what you hear to aid in the commission of a crime (e.g. evading police)
3. Use what you hear for personal gain (e.g. tow trucks listening for accidents to show up opportunistically at the scene)
4. Listen to transmissions relating to the following services :
* cellular phones
* cordless phones
* public land mobile systems
* voice paging services
* satellite/microwave/studio-to-transmitter links
* broadcast point-to-point relays.
5. Import a receiver which is capable of tuning cellular telephone frequencies
6. Import frequency converters which can be used to circumvent the blockage of cellular telephone frequency bands


Then took it a few steps further in 1997 and released directive DA 97-334 to make the modification you described above illegal:

Scanning receivers are required by Section 15.101(a) of the FCC Rules to be certificated by the Commission. Section 15.121 states that scanning receivers, and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers, must be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. Scanners that are capable of "readily being altered by the user" include, but are not limited to: those for which the ability to receive cellular telephone frequencies can be added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component, such as a diode, resistor and/or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or an external device. Scanners and frequency converters for use with scanners, must also be incapable of converting digital cellular frequencies to analog voice audio. Under Section 15.37(f), the manufacture or importation of scanning receivers, and frequency converters used with scanning receivers, that do not comply with Section 15.121 shall cease on or before April 26, 1994.

I have been loosely following the changes over the years and have always been a scanner person. What stands out with these modifications to the communications act to prevent cellular listening is the speed the FCC acted and continued to act and modify the laws as people found ways around the initial wording. I never really fully understood the motivations. I assume it was the cellular providers trying to provide consumers a false sense of security in combination with not having to admit they went cheap and used plain old non encypted analog commun

Stop going on about pinpoint precision etc.

I live in an apartment building, so satellite TV is not an option.

What if MS had put a fridge in the Xbox 360? Surely, that'd be a good enough cooling system, wouldn't it? It'd have to be the best they could possibly do at any price, right? And it'd get down to below 32F in there! Surely, we're set up!

But what happens if you put this fridge-designed Xbox 360 in an entertainment console which doesn't vent any air? Since the "hot side" and "cool side" are now in the same box, it does nothing. And since the system is taking in energy, both to be a game machine, and also to (uselessly) move freon around, it will heat up in that box. The temperature in the box, even the cool side will rise until the box it is in can radiate heat well enough to maintain a stable temperature.

I will say it again, for the millionth time, you don't understand thermodynamics. No matter how good or poor MS' cooling system is, you completely defeat it (actually make it work against you) if you put it in a stereo cabinet that has no ventilation. Your fridge would not work if put in an enclosed space either. You simply don't have an enclosed space large enough to put it in. It will work in a corner, it won't work in a box. And also to note, it doesn't have anything inside it that is generating 160W of heat. It has stuff inside it that is generating exactly 0W of heat. It simply has to fight entropy, not fight actual heat generation.

As to this fridge you speak of using less power than an Xbox 360, a typical fridge in 2002 uses 440KWh of power per year http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/english/page16.cf m?PrintView=N&Text=N. That's 1200Wh per day. That's 1/3rd what an Xbox 360 would use if it were turned on all day (160W*24h/day = 3840Wh/day). And the Xbox 360 takes up only about 1/3 of a cubic foot, a standard fridge probably is about 20 cubic feet (on the outside), thus it has many times the surface area with which to radiate/convect heat away, oh, and unlike an Xbox in a sealed container, it can blow exhaust air to eliminate heat. So I mention again, are you really understanding what is going on here?

Again, the laws of thermodynamics don't give you the choice of making a completely enclosed cooling system work. It gives you a couple options:

1. Vent the enclosed space. This is the best option, but it isn't under MS' control.
2. Make the 360 work at the temperatures it could possibly reach if fully enclosed. If this were possible, then the Xbox 360 wouldn't even have a fan in the first place, because radiative/convective cooling would be enough to keep it running in all conditions. Note that since the exhaust temps on my 360 can reach 140F, that means making the 360 work when the entire system is significantly hotter than that.
3. Make the 360 use less power, and thus heat up less. This is definitely possible, but if done, it would make the system not a better performer than current generation systems.
4. Make the 360 large enough that it won't fit in any enclosure people are likely to have around (stereo cabinets). This would suck since the DVD drive on it is so damn loud. Plus it would cost too much to ship from where it is made.

So, 1 can't be done by MS. 2 can't be done by anyone. 3 & 4 make the unit unsellable.

What is your suggestion again? Oh, that MS should mention that you can't put it in an enclosed space. Did you perhaps check page 2 of the manual? http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/re trieve.cgi?attachment_id=581228&native_or_pdf=pdf

Xbox 360 doesn't overheat unless you restrict its good cooling system from working (by putting it in a box or possibly the power supply on deep shag). It's in the same place as your fridge, despite being at a significant handicap as to power dissipation and surface area.

I do think it's a shame that video games now use so much power and em

There is a surcharge that is capped at 6.50 called the Subscriber line charge that is assessed by pretty much every carrier. Most carriers will only reiburse the charge when compelled by goverment programs. It is assest on a per line basis and you will probably never get it off your bill, since it can be hidden behind a goverment sounding name, but isn't required collection.

A basic breakdown of typical charges and taxes can be found at the FCC.

As for the National Access Fee, that is simple. It can ONLY be assessed by your long distance carrier, if you have no carrier, there is no one that can charge it. Again, you may have some sort of toll restriction in place. Upon thinking about it further, it is possible that the Tariff for your area may allow/require (I really hate the PSC/PSU scapegoat telephone companies use) a restriction of some sort. The FCC has an okay website for explaining the charges and the layout of your bill.

My apartment complex requires all kinds of crap for 18"dishes... (Including something like $500K insurance). and they don't allow them to be mounted. They pretty much made it impossible for residents to have one. (Of about 1000 residents, nobody has one!)

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

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

Cell phone providers are now required to support E911. To wit:

The wireless E911 program is divided into two parts - Phase I and Phase II. Phase I requires carriers, upon appropriate request by a local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), to report the telephone number of a wireless 911 caller and the location of the antenna that received the call. Phase II requires wireless carriers to provide far more precise location information, within 50 to 300 meters in most cases.

The deployment of E911 requires the development of new technologies and upgrades to local 911 PSAPs, as well as coordination among public safety agencies, wireless carriers, technology vendors, equipment manufacturers, and local wireline carriers. The FCC established a four-year rollout schedule for Phase II, beginning October 1, 2001 and to be completed by December 31, 2005.

(Source: http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/)

In order to implement E911, GPS is necessary. In some areas you can get quite excellent pinpointing from cell triangulation, but not in others, due to terrain features, buildings, and other sources of interference. Thus, it will be impossible to purchase a cellular phone without GPS in the US starting January 1. Even phones which do not provide GPS functionality to the user will contain GPS! All of them.

(Disclaimer: "The FCC has granted various limited waivers of the Phase II rules to wireless carriers, subject to revised deployment schedules and quarterly reporting requirements.") - see the linked page above.

Great article research. Linksys will/have released a Linux version and labled the packaging "Open Source". Here's the FCC information on the Linux device.

If you get rid of the FCC there will be no wireless that is even remotely useable. There would be mass chaos, I mean think of all the things that the fcc keeps devices from doing http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-91 905.pdf

The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes.

Of course, if you don't have any view to the south you're still screwed.

If you lease a property or own a home, no HOA or Management can restrict you from having a dish installed in a private living area. "Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio." Read it yourself. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html It's federal mandate, if someone is telling you its against the rules or local laws to mount one, they're violating federal law.

No, it's more like telling radio and microwave tower operators to use white blinking lights instead of red ones because the red ones interfere with bird migration (really -- they do).

This sort of thing does not interfere with any sort of economic well-being, nor does it require a significant cost up front, like your analogy presumes.

Wrong. See http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-225221A1.pdf.

Receivers with screen sizes 36 inches and above -- 50% of a responsible party's units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2004; 100% of such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005.

Receivers with screen sizes 25 to 35 inches -- 50% of a responsible party's units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005; 100% of such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2006.

Receivers with screen sizes 13 to 24 inches -- 100% of all such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2007.

TV Interface Devices VCRs and DVD players/recorders, etc. that receive broadcast television signals -- 100% of all such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2007.

The article summary says:

The old analog television spectrum will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

This is simply not the case. If you read the FCC's FAQ on the subject of digital television (which is what this is about, incidentally -- the FCC is mandating digital, but not high-def, which is only part of digital), you will see this:

Under the FCC spectrum plan, we have provided most existing broadcasters with access to a 6 MHz channel for digital broadcasting within a core digital TV spectrum, i.e., TV channels 2 to 51.

This means that the new digital channels are being assigned to 6 MHz channels within the existing analog TV spectrum. In other words, they are just shuffling things around within the same spectrum. Analog TV is 6 MHz for one channel, and so is digital. (Digital can have subchannels, but that is part of the protocol, not something the FCC worries about after they've assigned the 6 MHz bandwidth to a TV station.)

So, are they actually taking away any of the analog spectrum? Yes, they are taking part of it away -- a very small part. They are taking away channels 52-69. The FCC's FAQ says this:

during the transition some broadcasters would be provided DTV channels outside of this core spectrum (channels 52 to 69). These broadcasters would have to move their DTV operations to a channel in the core spectrum when one became available.

Translation: they are going to try to eventually move every channel which is in the 52-69 range down into the 2-51 range. They are leaving 2-51 available for television, and they are trying to reclaim 52-69.

So, is this a good thing? Well, how many TV stations do you know of that are in the 52-69 range right now? There are very few. It's a part of the spectrum that isn't used for TV much right now as it is anyway. So in a way, the FCC is basically taking this opportunity to clean out this little-used part of the spectrum.

If you want to go into a little more detail, check out this Adobe PDF spectrum chart. Look at the 300MHz-3GHz line, and look at the "TV BROADCASTING" section after the one that denotes channels 21-36. You'll see that it goes from 614Mhz to 698MHz, and since all TV channels are 6 MHz bandwidth, that means 84/6 = 14 channels. This means it goes with channels 37-50 (the next 14 channels after 21-36). And then look after that on the chart. You'll see that 698MHz through 806MHz is allocated for "BROADCAST" but also for "FIXED" and "MOBILE" purposes. So apparently it's not 100% dedicated to television right now. So the FCC is right to say that range (channels 50 and higher) is not part of the "core" spectrum.

Anyway, even if you don't agree that we should give up the part of 52-69 that is allocated to television (because apparently not all of it is), it's still important to note that the FCC is not auctioning off ALL of the analog TV spectrum. Actually, there are 68 channels total, and it would seem they are only auctioning off 18 of them, and part of those 18 channels aren't even allocated to TV in certain areas right now, so it's less than 18 channels. So, at worst, they are auctioning off 18/68 = 26.5% of the analog TV spectrum, and they are leaving exactly 50 broadcast television channels available.

What I love about this whole topic is the people that have no clue about what is really happening. All these posts about HDTV, ignore them. They are at best misinformed. The switch that is going to take place has nothing to do with HDTV. Yes, HDTV is a form of digital programming signal, but it is not the one that is being mandated. You already recieve many programs in digital, provided that you have a cable box, or a satellite system. With digital broadcasting you can cram several channels into the spot allocated for one analog channel. That is what will free up the bandwitdh. Conversitions of 6:1 or 8:1 or not uncommon thus allowing for 6 or 8 channels to be broadcast in the slot available for one analog channel.
Also, it is not the cable companies that are the hold up. Once again, ignorace reigns supreme. Cable companies are not the content producers. They simply pass the programming along to subscribers. The hold up is the cost of equipment to produce the content in digital format and distribute it to the cable companies. Most cable companies and satellite companies have already in place an infrastructure that will support the distribution of many more stations then are currently in use.
The consumer information on this is available at fcc.gov here: http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.htm l and here: http://www.dtv.gov/

Or would you claim that the Mississippi River divides the country into two distinct landmasses?

The FCC would say so.

Nitpick, sorry... but something that occured to me.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/donotcall/

I should have been more clear.

Here's a very informative statement by Kennard about the FCC status in 1998... It helps us see where we are now came to be.
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0610ken.pdf

Kennard maintained that the purpose of the FCC was to promote competition and UNiversal Access (both to telephone and internet).

So what happened to the FCC? Why does the FCC still want to regulate radio transmissions, when as TFA points out, there is no appreciable limit to transmission based on frequency?

Well, Kennard resigned in 2001. Succeeding him were Michael Powell and Kevin Martin. Most of us know what Powell gave us, but here's a link to Martin's public statements since his appointment:
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/statements 2005.html

Not too much mention about competition there. Nor about USF, other than instigating inquiries. So what exactly is the FCC mission under Martin?

I don't have a cellphone, and the more spy stuff that gets attached to them, the less motivated I am to get one.

Network development means expansion of the network. And that's exactly what universal service fees are for.

That's what I meant by providing services to rural customers - expanding networks to those regions. But that's POTS networks, not wireless coverage.

If you look through what the USF is used for it mentions Lifeline/Link-Up assistance to consmers, and they are obviously referring to "normal" phone service. A phone itself is considered almost a necessity in today's society, but not a cell phone.

Wireless customers pay the fee but don't get more towers because of it. Just like like POTS customers pay the Enhanced 911 fee even though the technology it subsidies is to help locate cell phone users dialing 911.

I do see the point the original poster made. The fee money is not directly tagged and accounted for in how the telcos use it. But the government is expecting companies recieving this money to be actively expanding/maintaining a phone network outside the subscriber hot spots, so to blatanty state all the money just goes into some fat cat's retirement fund is a little silly.

We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.

No you don't.

Universal service fees are used to subsidize communication services in areas where it doesn't make business sense to provide service (not enough subs to justify network building/upkeep), provide access to public schools, and subsidize phone service for the inpoverished.

I have yet to see anything about a government fee used to fund the R&D of a private business. That's supposed to paid for by a portion of the telco's own revenue from subscribers.

Revenue from current customers + potential revenue from new customers/services = incentive to develop and improve products/services.

It's been an FCC requirement since June.

Many VOIP vendors already offer it, and all will before the end of the year.

The "GPS/Location thing" on your phone _is_ intended to provide these types of Location-Based Services (LBs) both for e911 purposes and for consumer network services.
The issue here is rollout timing. Currently, most mobile carriers are scrambling to meet their FCC e911 obligations. Eventually the carriers will definately roll out LBS to consumers, once e911 is satisfied and they have a billing model to profit from the service.

The consumer mobile phone location services that you want are similar to the e911 services mandated by the FCC but there are some fundaemental differences which I'll attempt to describe:
There are two phases of e911 (http://www.fcc.gov/911/enhanced/); some of this data is summarized by mobileIN on one page here: http://www.mobilein.com/wireless_emergency_service s.htm
Phase I: (required by April 1 1998)
provide emergency service responders at the local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) with the callback cell phone number and the location of the connecting tower a mobile emergency call.
Phase II: (commence Oct 1 2001 - complete by Dec 31 2005)
requires wireless carriers to provide far more precise location information of an incoming mobile emergency call, within 50 meters 67% of the time, within 150-300 meters 95% of the time.

The Phase II e911 requirements give some leeway to the wireless carrier as to how this location service is provided: handset-based, tower/network-based, or a hybrid of the two.
As of Oct 1 2001, all new handsets sold in the US had to require e911 Phase II capabilities to assist with e911 location services. This is the service your phone has and that's what the symbol implies. Some phone manufacturers may have even made this information reasonable easy for a consumer to access (I think another thread refers to an admin code for an LG phone).
Apparently by Dec 31 2005, all active handsets must supply e911 compliant services or will be denied wireless carrier service.

Regardless, the e911 Phase II services are the priority for the wireless carriers and lays the foundation for further mobile LBS applications.
Note that the e911 requirement is that location information be provided to the the PSAP - a fairly simple requirement given that the carriers have full control of how they provide this information.
Mobile applications will require a sophisticated, robust API to access this location data, which must be maintained by the carrier - in most cases the carriers just havn't done it yet.
Prior to the buyout by Cingular, AT&T had apparently rolled out Location services for beta-testing in Seattle WA (as early as 2002) and it is likely that Cingular is benefiting from the AT&T expertise.
Now that phones are being made with fast cpus and gobs of memory, it's quite possible to do the GPS math in the handset if you have access to the connection information in sufficient detail.
Nokia Series 60 phones and above make this information available via the handset API and I know of at least one Nokia app that can track which tower you are attached to. Once you know the tower, it is a simple question of
"is this tower's location in your database?"
If so, the software knows the handset is within x radius of the that tower - ie you know where you are well enough to coarsely locate the phone.

I believe what this Intel whitepaper proposes is the similar recipe on a broader scale.

1. Setup an good receiver/antenna
2. Receive all radio signals across all frequencies well enough to parse the unique tower code, Radio station ID, or MAC address in the case of Wifi access points.
3. Use the vast location database of all known radio signal transmitter beacons to locate all sources of the signals received
4. Use this combined information to perform a triangulation with a massive number of known points and cancel out beacon location errors; even without timing data, trian

Next step up would be to have a ham license so you could talk back. Although...in an emergency I'm not sure how strict the FCC would be if you didn't have one.

All depends what frequencies you're using. Some of the red cross frequencies are specifically for licensed users, others aren't. Call the local fire/rescue house and see what they recommend. I've talked on the two-way radio before, handheld as well as the one in the fire engine and the ambulance. I didn't need an FCC license, but I was trained in the protocol and had permission from the chief. One of the EMTs got into a car accident while off duty once, and instead of calling 911 he radioed right to dispatch.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/wncol.html "You do NOT need a commercial radio operator license to operate, repair, or maintain...Two-way land mobile radio equipment, such as that used by police and fire departments, taxicabs and truckers, businesses and industries, ambulances and rescue squads, local, state, and federal government agencies."

The FCC appears to truly believe that they have been granted power to regulate Internet usage as they see fit.

It's not just the wording, it's the mentality. Everything about the document suggests that the FCC is the source from which the right to use the Internet flows. AND that the *consumer* is ultimately responsible for anything "illegal" that is on his computer. Even if it's just a matter of unknowningly using a VoIP protocol that doesn't allow tapping.

There's no other way to read it, and furthermore, it's the only "logical" (in terms of the logic of empire) way of dealing with the situation. Since they can never regulate the internet COMPANIES - who will all swiftly relocate to another country - they will have to regulate the PEOPLE to make sure their laws are followed. And they have to do that since, of course, laws passed must be enforced.

This is, as they say, doubleplus ungood.

However, if you read the 59-page PDF of the CALEA ruling, you'll see CALEA applies to broadband operators in general. You're correct that it doesn't apply to email services - so hotmail doesn't have to deal with CALEA, but your ISP does.

Also, they state on page 20 that CALEA doesn't apply to the storage of email at your ISP. This is true. However, they state CALEA does apply to the "switching and transmission" component of the ISP's service. So they can't ask for a copy of your stored email - but they CAN ask to tap all the traffic to and from your PC.

If you are in the U.S. and the line is registered residential, then this has been illegal since 1991.

Some relevant links:

• DMA Info
• The FCC
• Wikipedia
• Junkbusters

Okay, I actually downloaded the full Telecommunications Act and read through sec. 629.

SEC. 629. [47 U.S.C. 549] COMPETITIVE AVAILABILITY OF NAVIGATION DEVICES.
(a) COMMERCIAL CONSUMER AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT USED TO ACCESS SERVICES PROVIDED BY MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTORS.--The Commission shall, in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations, adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability, to consumers of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any multichannel video programming distributor. Such regulations shall not prohibit any multichannel video programming distributor from also offering converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, to consumers, if the system operator's charges to consumers for such devices and equipment are separately stated and not subsidized by charges for any such service.
(b) PROTECTION OF SYSTEM SECURITY.--The Commission shall not prescribe regulations under subsection (a) which would jeopardize security of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or impede the legal rights of a provider of such services to prevent theft of service.
(c) WAIVER.--The Commission shall waive a regulation adopted under subsection (a) for a limited time upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider, that such waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video
programming systems, technology, or products. Upon an appropriate showing, the Commission shall grant any such waiver request within 90 days of any application filed under this subsection, and such waiver shall be effective for all service providers and products in that category and for all providers of services and products.
(d) AVOIDANCE OF REDUNDANT REGULATIONS.--
(1) COMMERCIAL AVAILABILITY DETERMINATIONS.--Determinations made or regulations prescribed by the Commission with respect to commercial availability to consumers of converter boxes, interactive communications equipment, and other equipment used by consumers to
access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall fulfill the requirements of this section.
(2) REGULATIONS.--Nothing in this section affects section 64.702(e) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 64.702(e)) or other Commission regulations governing interconnection and competitive provision of customer premises equipment used in connection with basic
common carrier communications services.
(e) SUNSET.--The regulations adopted under this section shall cease to apply when the Commission determines that--
(1) the market for the multichannel video programming distributors
is fully competitive;
(2) the market for converter boxes, and interactive communications equipment, used in conjunction with that service is fully competitive; and
(3) elimination of the regulations would promote competition and the public interest.
(f) COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as expanding or limiting any authority that the Commission may have under law in effect before the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

But I don't

Good encryption or not, I'd be more worried about the recent moves of the FCC to allow law enforcement virtual wiretap access. Our freedoms have eroded enough as of late, and it is disconcerting to say the very least. Here is the relevant link from the article and from the eff

Of course, once we go digital, it will no longer be possible to get TV on the FM radio.

It will be funny (not funny haha, but funny sad) when people in 3rd world countries can get information 'in the air', and we're beating each other sensless in a wave of violent anarchy.

Most GMRS radios cover both FRS and GMRS bands, and the radios that I've used don't provide a clear distinction as to which service you're broadcasting on. Most users of FRS/GMRS radios only see channel numbers, which the manuals usually idicate which service the channel corresponds to.

--a HAM operator who isn't very involved anymore and doesn't want to post his callsign on /. because his personal info can be looked up too easily

Go read the Communications Act of 1934 and all of the ammendments to date.

The Communications Act is the enabling piece of legislation that created the FCC. It is what allows radio transmissions to occur legally at all and implicitely denies property owners any sort of tort of tresspass for wireless signals. It also states that you can listen ("monitor") any communication you wish, but had a "secrecy of communications" clause that forbids disclosure of the contents of any wireless communication to 3rd parties or use for gain of monitored communications unless they are directed specifically to you, or are transmitted by a broadcaster, a station in disstress (as later ammended, Amateurs and CB were also exempted from the secrecy section).

In the 70s, HBO started up. As explained here, the courts have ruled that putting a pay TV signal on your TV so you can watch it amounts to "publishing" it. In addition, HBO got the secrecy of communications section (Section 705) ammended to forbid decrypting satellite downlink signals if those signals represent programming that is available for subscription.

So in short, it is the Communications Act that allows broadcasters (and non-broadcasters as well, including your next door neighbor's garage door opener and cordless phone) to send signals over your property without paying you anything. And you aren't allowed to decrypt encrypted satellite-to-ground communications that are available for subscription without the authorization of the sender because of the ammendments to section 705.

Oh, and the satellite broadcasters do pay fees. Pretty damn hefty ones. They're called license fees. The FCC collects them and they go into the US Treasury. More than anything else, that's what gives them the right to beam encrypted signals across your property without paying (specifically) you.

The concept of digital broadcasting having strings attached is both morally repugnant and stupid, but you at least have to put forward a reasonable argument as to why rather than just making shit up, dude.

You're SO full of shit.

20050108591 - "A method includes adjusting the clock speed of a central processing unit (CPU) as a function of the output of a performance monitor forming part of an operating system controlling the CPU. The method can be implemented on battery powered devices and on non-battery powered devices."

So, your brilliant idea is to slow down a CPU to save power? Hmmm, I wonder who else might do that.

Your other patent app doesn't even show up in the system. You're either a fraud or you're insane. Either way, shut the fuck up.

By the way, I'm going to make sure that I use Google AND click on the ads as much as possible. Freak.