Slashdot Mirror

BPL causes gross EMI radiation on FCC protected bands due to the use of unshielded transmission lines (powerlines are more like antennas) and is also highly sensitive to interference from legal RF transmissions.

BPL has to be killed. If BPL trials come to my area, I'm going to get my HAM radio liscense, a Yaesu 20 meter transmitter, and drive around transmitting legal power and kill all your downloads!

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515383154

As qwbiz already indicated: it's easier to accept any number than screen some out. Note that they accept business numbers too, but there is no law against telemarketing to a business number, so you can't complain about that and get any enforcement as you can with a residential line.

It is illegal to make auto-dialed calls to any phone for which the user may be charged for airtime. And any telemarketing company with people punching the tone buttons isn't calling enough to matter. I honestly don't believe any manual-dialing telemarketing firms still exist -- do you know of any?

At any rate -- I didn't say that registering your cellphone on the do not call list will do harm. But you did say "Just a heads up, soon it will not be illegal for them to call cell phones unless they are registered on the do not call list. I would suggest that everyone in the US register their cell phones on http://www.donotcall.gov/" which implies that the law is changing (whatever is "illegal" now, "soon . . . will not be.") Yet you provided no evidence to back this up.

Then you even admitted that was pure speculation based the creation of a "411 wireless directory that will be implemented in 2006" which, is not anything like a certainty. Got any links to back even that claim up? No? Try this one then and quit with the FUD.

And now, despite being called on two unfounded claims stated as facts, you're still arguing. Weird, that.

Isn't the POTS system closed?

No, it is an open standard, regulated by the FCC, 47 CFR 68.3.

See the FAQ

I *highly* suggest any US ciziten reading this article contact the FCC and voice your concern.

From http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov

Via US MAIL or Fedex/UPS/etc:

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

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

well, for the info, there already is a tax on the internet (well, on phones actually, but it carries over to the internet as most people use dialup or DSL, which uses phone lines) called the USF (universal service fee/fund http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/usfincrease.h tml). you likely never noticed it on your internet bill, but it's there if your ISP isn't footing the bill themselves (unlikely).

OK. I did look it up. It's here. Only applies if the dish is less than 1m in diameter. So a digital satellite dish would qualify, but one of those 2m+ ones (like I used to see in the 80's) could still be restricted. Then again, does anybody still get the giant ones? Maybe to pick up foreign television transmissions?

A Hearing last year would have predated the FCC mandate***. Why would you expect any VoIP company to enforce rules that were not in effect?

Lesee if I got this right; you received an email 'offering' to solve your problem, at which point you detached your self from the process. And you fault THEM ?! And this was LAST year...

Last month you got a barrage... think it was because the FCC changed the rules about that time, hmmmm?

Given the above, I suspect I'm taking a leap of faith, but
        ok, assuming you were involved such as para #1 states. Do you suppose that the FCC Mandate http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/voip911order.pdf might be a concrete example of WHY they didn't want to be ruled a PHONE company?
        You're aware of course that a big component to the 911 VoIP puzzle is how to fix up mobile people that don't care and who don't match. If you know shit about this then you know what I'm talking about. It would have been immensely more useful for the FCC to mandate the users to be Exempt_From_Recourse if they did not dial From_A_Valid_Address (aka registered).
        But the FCC has no authority over the user of a channel, only the "transmitter".
        Maybe they could have just left the door open to signing up as voice_response_only (required to identify the current address)?

Given the above...
        I'm concerned for NYC if you do because of your dismissive tone. You do understand that nobody was *counting* then? It was surely easy to think that most customers were ok. Because -and here's the important part- the rules were different then.

Nice story. Thanks for the trip. We'll do this again realsoon.

The truth of it is that the user only needs to understand -in a legal sense- that ..."the address you supply is the address we give to your local authorities when you use VoIP 911. We make ../.. attempt. We reserve ../.. which authorities to contact and provide all legal information ../.. demanded by"... is the agreement and their commitment.

Was the agreement. Until recently when the FCC said (IMO) that VoIP was Phone.

Not like there was any Consumer input to it. And damned little competitive input. The results speak to that....

It worries me that the nascent VoIP channel is growing up too fast for its own good. And moreso that it's being asked to grow in predicatble ways. Established ways. Not New ways....

But it's not Phone.

-I speak only for myself as an American citizen.-

*** - Adopted: May 19, 2005 Released: June 3, 2005

---
ps- /. Admins (ATTN: Slashdot administators)
    pls add cookie to keep the post format (txt,html,extrans,code) of the last post/reply (that's two ;) and chose it for the session.

<disclaimer statement='I speak only for myself as an American citizen'/>

Some noise? It's wide spectrum interferance and not notchable due to the carrier's pattern.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515383154

It should be an exciting opertunity for the BPL technology folks to have to learn that RFI is a two-way street.

That's some crappy technology.. I'll take a fibre instead, thanks.. NEXT PLEASE!

>It is illegal to transmit anywhere else without a license, regardless of power.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
Specificall at the PCS frequency 1.705-2.1735 MHz the maximum legal power is 100 uV/M at 30 M

I re-read the report and order of October 14, 2004 that ammended Part 15 by adding Subpart G and find no such reference. Perhaps there's another modification that you know about.

While FCC 04-245 Report and Order, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 does make some specific statements about emmission limits, it does not nullify or mitigate the Part 15 requirements of non-interference. In fact, it adds the requirement that the BPL systems must be capable of some level of attenuating signals to avoid interference with licensed services (for less than 30 MHz must be able to attenuate at least 20 dB below Part 15 limits). It further specifies how they are to respond to interference complaints. However, it does not specify that it is sufficient to meet the 20 dB attentuation when there is a complaint. In fact, as far as I can tell, it remains that as a Part 15 user they must not cause harmful interference to a licensed user of the spectrum.

If you believe otherwise, please indicate where it says that meeting the emmission limits is sufficient.

Yeah I bet you get hardly any attenuation with that powerful FM IPod transmitter! No distance limitation what so ever :P

Seriously though, even "low-power FM" transmissions are regulated by the FCC. What's considered low-power to the FCC? It means Effective Radiated Power (ERP) maximum of 100 watts! I might be crazy but I doubt the IPod can generate this much power (5v x 1A = ucantdoeeet).

Even these can only broadcast about 3.5 miles with a 100 ft. antenna: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lpfm/index.html

The announcemnt came last week. its a .pdf

In March 2005, the FCC ruled to open up a new swath of the Public Airwaves (in the 3650-3700 MHz range) for use by Community Wireless Networks, neighborhood organizations, independent ISPs, schools, churches, and anyone else who wanted to create wireless broadband systems.

But now, a coalition of major corporations is fighting to keep this spectrum for themselves -- they want the FCC to reopen the 3650-3700MHz proceedings and get the FCC to overturn its previous decision.

Until August 11, 2005 you can file comments opposing the reopening of the 3650-3700MHz proceedings and stop this pillaging in its tracks.

Here's how you can help save the Public Airwaves in under 5 minutes:

A. Point your browser to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi

B. Enter "04-151" (without the quotes) as the Proceeding in item one.

C. Select "Reply to Petition for Reconsideration" as the Document Type for item 12 and fill out the rest of the form.

D. Type in your comment in the "Send a Brief Comment to FCC" blue text box towards the bottom of the webpage.

Not sure what to write? All you need is a few sentences or a paragraph identifying yourself and/or your organization and why you think keeping the 3650-3700MHz band open is a good idea -- e.g., it supports equitable access to broadband connectivity, spurs innovation, helps lower infrastructure costs (and thus consumer prices), lessens congestion in urban areas, helps connect rural areas, creates new markets for hardware, etc. etc. etc. Feel free to also thank the FCC for opening up the spectrum in the first place (and always be nice) -- don't forget, FCC staffers are people too.

If scores of people and organizations write in, the FCC will listen. Please take 5 minutes right now to help forge national telecommunications policy in the public interest.

In March, the FCC opened up the 3650 to 3700 MHz band of spectrum for use by an unlimited number of licensees throughout the country, with an easy online application process, no eligibility restrictions or costs to speak of, and with all licensees having a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to each other. That band is currently used for Fixed Satellite Stations and exclusion zones around their facilities (see page 66) would prevent usage nearby, but most of the U.S. could benefit from new widespread competion to provide faster, cheaper wireless broadband.

However, recently nine petitions were filed asking the FCC to reconsider its decision and impose severe restrictions on who can use the spectrum, e.g., Motorola is requesting that all 50 MHz be divided into two blocks with each auctioned off to the highest bidder and Intel requested the same for major metropolitan areas. What do you think: open it or auction it?

Those who'd like to add their opinions to the previous set of comments, perhaps thanking the FCC for opening up the spectrum and opposing its sale at auction to just a pair of exclusive license holders in each area can file a comment by entering 04-151 in the proceeding number here and selecting Reply to Petition for Reconsideration in the drop down box at the bottom. Deadline this week, Thursday Aug 11. Even just a sentence or two of input can be helpful...

In March, the FCC opened up the 3650 to 3700 MHz band of spectrum for use by an unlimited number of licensees throughout the country, with an easy online application process, no eligibility restrictions or costs to speak of, and with all licensees having a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to each other. That band is currently used for Fixed Satellite Stations and exclusion zones around their facilities (see page 66) would prevent usage nearby, but most of the U.S. could benefit from new widespread competion to provide faster, cheaper wireless broadband.

However, recently nine petitions were filed asking the FCC to reconsider its decision and impose severe restrictions on who can use the spectrum, e.g., Motorola is requesting that all 50 MHz be divided into two blocks with each auctioned off to the highest bidder and Intel requested the same for major metropolitan areas. What do you think: open it or auction it?

Those who'd like to add their opinions to the previous set of comments, perhaps thanking the FCC for opening up the spectrum and opposing its sale at auction to just a pair of exclusive license holders in each area can file a comment by entering 04-151 in the proceeding number here and selecting Reply to Petition for Reconsideration in the drop down box at the bottom. Deadline this week, Thursday Aug 11. Even just a sentence or two of input can be helpful...

In March, the FCC opened up the 3650 to 3700 MHz band of spectrum for use by an unlimited number of licensees throughout the country, with an easy online application process, no eligibility restrictions or costs to speak of, and with all licensees having a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to each other. That band is currently used for Fixed Satellite Stations and exclusion zones around their facilities (see page 66) would prevent usage nearby, but most of the U.S. could benefit from new widespread competion to provide faster, cheaper wireless broadband.

However, recently nine petitions were filed asking the FCC to reconsider its decision and impose severe restrictions on who can use the spectrum, e.g., Motorola is requesting that all 50 MHz be divided into two blocks with each auctioned off to the highest bidder and Intel requested the same for major metropolitan areas. What do you think: open it or auction it?

Those who'd like to add their opinions to the previous set of comments, perhaps thanking the FCC for opening up the spectrum and opposing its sale at auction to just a pair of exclusive license holders in each area can file a comment by entering 04-151 in the proceeding number here and selecting Reply to Petition for Reconsideration in the drop down box at the bottom. Deadline this week, Thursday Aug 11. Even just a sentence or two of input can be helpful...

In March, the FCC opened up the 3650 to 3700 MHz band of spectrum for use by an unlimited number of licensees throughout the country, with an easy online application process, no eligibility restrictions or costs to speak of, and with all licensees having a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to each other. That band is currently used for Fixed Satellite Stations and exclusion zones around their facilities (see page 66) would prevent usage nearby, but most of the U.S. could benefit from new widespread competion to provide faster, cheaper wireless broadband.

However, recently nine petitions were filed asking the FCC to reconsider its decision and impose severe restrictions on who can use the spectrum, e.g., Motorola is requesting that all 50 MHz be divided into two blocks with each auctioned off to the highest bidder and Intel requested the same for major metropolitan areas. What do you think: open it or auction it?

Those who'd like to add their opinions to the previous set of comments, perhaps thanking the FCC for opening up the spectrum and opposing its sale at auction to just a pair of exclusive license holders in each area can file a comment by entering 04-151 in the proceeding number here and selecting Reply to Petition for Reconsideration in the drop down box at the bottom. Deadline this week, Thursday Aug 11. Even just a sentence or two of input can be helpful...

In March, the FCC opened up the 3650 to 3700 MHz band of spectrum for use by an unlimited number of licensees throughout the country, with an easy online application process, no eligibility restrictions or costs to speak of, and with all licensees having a mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to each other. That band is currently used for Fixed Satellite Stations and exclusion zones around their facilities (see page 66) would prevent usage nearby, but most of the U.S. could benefit from new widespread competion to provide faster, cheaper wireless broadband.

However, recently nine petitions were filed asking the FCC to reconsider its decision and impose severe restrictions on who can use the spectrum, e.g., Motorola is requesting that all 50 MHz be divided into two blocks with each auctioned off to the highest bidder and Intel requested the same for major metropolitan areas. What do you think: open it or auction it?

Those who'd like to add their opinions to the previous set of comments, perhaps thanking the FCC for opening up the spectrum and opposing its sale at auction to just a pair of exclusive license holders in each area can file a comment by entering 04-151 in the proceeding number here and selecting Reply to Petition for Reconsideration in the drop down box at the bottom. Deadline this week, Thursday Aug 11. Even just a sentence or two of input can be helpful...

The FCC has already ruled on similar cases. They will get involved. This falls into the catagory of why Home Owners associations cannot restrict 1 meter satellite dishes.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

Word of PDF take your pick. Good thing OpenOffice opens docs.(another discussion alltogether)

Essentially this is going to screw us all and the FCC really pisses me off lately. I would like to know just who our government really represents because lately it sure as hell doesn't feel like the people.

So basically all us outlaw DSL users that don't opt for the telco sponsored service have a year, after which who knows what will happen. The actual release is very vague and uses lots of references to common and non-common carrier wording. This kind of crap is really getting out of hand with the FCC.

Check out the statements from the people that made the descision. I understand the logic but the implimentation seems backwards. Heres the basic gist, cable companies get protection from leasing thier lines(which is why my cable bill is 120 bucks with no premium channels) Telcos do not currently have the same luxury.

Some choice quotes: Kevin J Martin said: "I believe that, with the actions we take today, consumers will reap the benefits of increased Internet access competition and enjoy innovative high-speed services at lower prices. There is, however, more to do to stimulate infrastructure investment, broadband deployment, and competition in the broadband market. I intend to tackle these challenges in the upcoming months." Wow this guy makes some big claims....I wonder what those challenges are and how they intend to handle that.

Kathleen Q. Abernathy states:"And let there be no doubt: competition among broadband providers is flourishing. The Commission's most recent statistics show that over 80% of zip codes in America are served by two or more high-speed providers, about two-thirds are served by three or more, and over half are served by four or more." Idea for the next slashdot poll. How many broadband providers serve you? If I cut out thirdparty ISPs like Speakeasy I have Qwest and Comcast. Thats two services run by a bunch of monkeys charging whatever the hell they want for thier service.

all of the statements made by the people that made the decision are full of "facts and figures" with no references to sources. The real driving force behind this decision is those peer to peer music stealing communist evil pirates that are taking the food from artists childrens mouth. The short statement likes the use of "legal devices" what is a legal device to access the internet? Is that defined somewhere? Children like Jermajesty(no I am not kidding lookit up)! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! This goes hand in hand with CALEA which is cited in the release as well.

I would run away to another county but thats not much better

... rather than just taking everything I hear from the internet (interpreted thanks to eff.org). Kudos to people like sheetrock, teilo, and others for doing the same. Im not going to bother reiterating some of their previous points regarding "backdooring our routers!". If you're confused ... lookup "backdoor" and "wiretap" on some jargon files or something.

Heres a link to the fcc announcement (NOT eff.org's) http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-260434A1.pdf

Ooooh theres some big telco words in there that I had to look up.

facilities-based isp: isp owns the switches and access servers.

Many isps are non-facilities based or hybrid based, meaning that they buy some access from other facilities-based isps, and have some equipment of their own. It only makes sense that the fcc would want access to the equipment through the people that actually own them.

More specifically the announcement mentioned that they would target the facilities based isps / voIP carriers that allow connection to pstn (public switched telephone network).

You guys have all seen those cop movies where they sneak into the bad guy's house and tap his phone. Well, if a bad guy is using voIP, you can hardly do that. (Well you can, because voIP's standard is not encrypted, although some like skype claim to). So rather than try to tap at the source, which could possibly be encrypted (as teilo said), they just tap it at the point at which it is just pstn traffic again. (Remember they were focusing on services that allowed communication to pstn from voip). So if bad guy A tries to do voIP to bad guy B whos just on pstn, then fbi can listen in, without knowing the location of bad guy B.

This leaves the idea of the bad guys just talking voIP to voIP with encryption. People say that the government can already sniff our traffic and see everything we do, so whats the point of this new legislation? Where are they sniffing from? As of now, I don't think its via these ISPs who are commercially owned with little to no regulation. So maybe this is the government just moving their pieces in to better position on the board.
Just my 2 cents.

NEWS
Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20554

News Media Information 2021418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov/
TTY: 1-888-835-5322

this Is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI Y. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Clrc 1974).

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 5, 2005

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Mark Wigfield, 202-418-0253 Email; mark.wigfield@fcc.gov

FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP Providers to Accommodate Wiretaps

Order Strikes Balance Between Law Enforcement, Innovation

Washington, D.C. - Responding to a petition from the Department of Justice, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Commission determined that
providers of certain broadband and interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
must be prepared to accommodate law enforcement wiretaps, the Federal Communications
Commission ruled today.

The Commission found that these services can essentially replace conventional
telecommunications services currently subject to wiretap rules, including circuit-switched voice
service and dial-up Internet access. As replacements, the new services are covered by the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, which requires the
Commission to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct court-ordered
wiretaps in the face of technological change.

The Order is limited to facilities-based broadband Internet access service providers and
VoIP providers that offer services permitting users to receive calls from, and place calls to, the
public switched telephone network. These VoIP providers are called interconnected VoIP
providers.

The Commission found that the definition of "telecommunications carrier" in CALEA is
broader than the definition of that term in the Communications Act and can encompass providers
of services that are not classified as telecommunications services under the Communications Act.
CALEA contains a provision that authorizes the Commission to deem an entity a
telecommunications carrier if the Commission "finds that such service is a replacement for a
substantial portion of the local telephone exchange."

Because broadband Internet and interconnected VoIP providers need a reasonable amount
of time to come into compliance with all relevant CALEA requirements, the Commission
established a deadline of 18 months from the effective date of this Order, by which time newly
covered entities and providers of newly covered services must be in full compliance. The
Commission also adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will seek more
information about whether certain classes

No, you are wrong:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

and most importantly:

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

read it and weep.

No, you are wrong:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

and most importantly:

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

read it and weep.

has the FCC not essentially said that it does not interfere in matters for wifi and other unlicensed bands?

All the FCC has said is that a license is not required for equipment operation. However, technical matters relating to radiating (and for that matter receiving) RF do not "go away". The FCC exercises it's authority where it is needed (and sometimes where it is not - ie broadcast flag) in all matters RF, large and small. In fact one whole section of federal law is devoted to nothing but telecommunications under the FCC.

The FCC takes matters of RF interference very seriously, and there is in fact a process where you can file a complaint.

While the WiFi bands are unlicensed, I do know that there are maximum power limits (offhand I believe 1 watt) that may be transmitted.

So if you want to try and "up" the power by making a couple of quick mods to your equipment to get extended range, you would be breaking the law. Often when this is done, the equipment will start radiating in adjacent frequency bands that are used by other services, and those people will notice and file a complaint.

The nature of the infringement will often determine the response. The FCC is very well known for having a fleet of nondescript black vans that say "FCC" on the side with a bunch of antennas on top. They are equipped to listen in on most any frequency and will determine the location by simple direction finding. At which time the often will show up on the doorstep of the offending party with a couple of FBI agents/US Marshalls and confiscate your equipment, arrest and prosecute you in federal court. Which can lead to jail time and nauseatingly hefty fines.

Here are a couple of examples . There are dozens more that don't make the news.

On the surface without investigating deeply, I believe that Logan Airport's complaint is a bald faced lie. If they are having problems with RFI from an unmodified WiFi transmitter which operates in the ++GHz Bands, then they must be having problems with cell phones and cell phone towers and countless other unintentional electronic radiators. What's more, such problems would indicate serious security issues with their equipment that should be dealt with, instead of trying to manipulate the FCC because (in reality) somebody is not paying up.

But in short, both statements in your post - that the FCC won't get involved and that it is a matter for nuisance law are completely false, and should not have been modded up.

has the FCC not essentially said that it does not interfere in matters for wifi and other unlicensed bands?

All the FCC has said is that a license is not required for equipment operation. However, technical matters relating to radiating (and for that matter receiving) RF do not "go away". The FCC exercises it's authority where it is needed (and sometimes where it is not - ie broadcast flag) in all matters RF, large and small. In fact one whole section of federal law is devoted to nothing but telecommunications under the FCC.

The FCC takes matters of RF interference very seriously, and there is in fact a process where you can file a complaint.

While the WiFi bands are unlicensed, I do know that there are maximum power limits (offhand I believe 1 watt) that may be transmitted.

So if you want to try and "up" the power by making a couple of quick mods to your equipment to get extended range, you would be breaking the law. Often when this is done, the equipment will start radiating in adjacent frequency bands that are used by other services, and those people will notice and file a complaint.

The nature of the infringement will often determine the response. The FCC is very well known for having a fleet of nondescript black vans that say "FCC" on the side with a bunch of antennas on top. They are equipped to listen in on most any frequency and will determine the location by simple direction finding. At which time the often will show up on the doorstep of the offending party with a couple of FBI agents/US Marshalls and confiscate your equipment, arrest and prosecute you in federal court. Which can lead to jail time and nauseatingly hefty fines.

Here are a couple of examples . There are dozens more that don't make the news.

On the surface without investigating deeply, I believe that Logan Airport's complaint is a bald faced lie. If they are having problems with RFI from an unmodified WiFi transmitter which operates in the ++GHz Bands, then they must be having problems with cell phones and cell phone towers and countless other unintentional electronic radiators. What's more, such problems would indicate serious security issues with their equipment that should be dealt with, instead of trying to manipulate the FCC because (in reality) somebody is not paying up.

But in short, both statements in your post - that the FCC won't get involved and that it is a matter for nuisance law are completely false, and should not have been modded up.

Ummm... That isn't entirely true. The FCC has multiple classes of licensing for electronics. The majority of consumer electronics, including devices that operate in the 2.4GHz band, have this restriction. However, I'm sure the security systems for the airport have different restrictions on emitting and receiving interference-causing signals.

In fact, a quick dig at the FCC's site (here) regarding Radio Devices alone shows lots of different requirements for any various spectrum, device, etc.

Specific to my point, FM radio broadcasters are allowed protection from interference as outlined here.

Knowing just the basics about FCC licensing, however, I do know that this is all a load of crap from the airport authorities. Devices operating in the 2.4GHz band are licensed for use under the condition that they don't cause any interference with other electronics. As long as those devices are not modified to operate outside the rules under which they were licensed, they wouldn't and there's no reason the FCC should, or would, get involved. And, as others have noted, if the 2.4GHz signals from Continental's WiFi equipment are interfering with the airport's security systems, what is preventing the same interference from the airport's own WiFi equipment?

The point is that the airport is being greedy and wants control over all WiFi access so they can charge for it. It's purely profit motivated, and all rather childish.

because a different agency, the FAA, says you cant when onboard a part 121 flight.

I thought it was both:

FCC rules currently ban cell phone use after a plane has taken off because of potential interference to cellular phone networks on the ground. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has rules prohibiting in-flight cell phone use because of potential interference to navigation and aircraft systems.

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

This has been discussed in Slashdot before.

Tell the FCC commissioners what you think:

KJMWEB@fcc.gov;Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov;Michael. Copps@fcc.gov;Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

Too late. We're all far beyond than screwed...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/verizon _fcc.reut/
http://www.fcc.gov/

Unfortunately, the hope I derived from the article referenced in my original post has been horribly dashed. The FCC has ruled, and it didn't go our way. Basically, the Baby Bells won't be required to share with anyone -- including CLECs.

I don't understand how the cable and telephone intrastructures can be so easily equated. Comast, Cox, et. al. invested their own money to construct their infrastructures. Telcos were were heavily subsidized to build the telephone infrastructure that delivers DSL. As with all investments, public or private, they come with strings attached. In this case, the Baby Bells need to be told, "You happily took, and in some cases still take, tax dollars to build your infrastructure. Now, as repayment, you have to open it up all takers." If a corporation failed to steal from its investors, the executives would be thrown in jail. Why should companies that take tax payer investment be held to a lesser standard?

"...consistent with the Telecommunications Act, to provide for a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework; on how to simplify and reduce common carrier reporting requirements..."

Here is the text of the act.

Perhaps the real effect of this was regulation of these companies; I can see that too.

"...consistent with the Telecommunications Act, to provide for a procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework; on how to simplify and reduce common carrier reporting requirements..."

Here is the text of the act.

Perhaps the real effect of this was regulation of these companies; I can see that too.

I am a consumer in the United States and I believe that deregulating DSL will do nothing for consumer choice. It will only give a monoply back to the bells that due to their business practices 20 years ago had to be broken up. They never stopped those practices, just hid them better.

If you deregulate DSL you lower the choice to 2 broadband choices that both historically have a low quality of service and support instead of allowing us a choice of companies that value their customers. One of these companies has even farmed all of their support over seas and is continuing to do so taking jobs away from American citizens.

Deregulation is a bad thing on it's own. The word Enron springs to mind. Not only will the incumbant company begin raising prices to cover their "costs of expansion" and farm more jobs over seas, you will also effectively kill off over 6000 independant ISPs and all the people they employ will join the unemployed

In Canada Incumbant internet providers are already blocking the competition websites so consumers may not look. This is the kind of thing you will start by deregulation of DSL.

When small and startup ISPs first began selling DSL, the incumbants tried to stiffle the service. Now they realize that with all the hard work of the small companies that it truly is a service worth keeping and they want to take the fruits of labor away from those who helped build it to what it is today.

In 2002, President Bush signed Executive Order 13272, requiring federal agencies to implement policies protecting small businesses when writing new rules and regulations. President Bush's own Small Business Agenda states that every new business starts with an idea for a better product or process, which has been the driving force of Internet innovation. Not a single innovation related to the Internet has come from the former Bell phone companies. In fact, when DSL was being launched by other smaller companies, the Bells continued to insist that DSL would threaten the quality of voice calls.

As a consumer, an employee, and as an American, I strongly urge you to not only keep DSL regulated, but to also regulate Cable internet service.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 regulates your phone service, so nothing will change there.

Sadly, the act does not cover DSL/cable access.

Read this, then you'll understand.

If you're looking for the short answer without having to do excessive research and wade through the crackpot stuff:

-Ionizing radiation: far ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays (wavelength 280nm or less )
Wavelength is small enough to cause cellular damage from free radicals. Definitely proven to cause cancer.

-microwave radiation: wavelength 30cm(1GHZ) to 1mm(300GHZ)
Not small enough to cause direct cellular damage (i.e. not ionizing). Exposure at high levels can cause burns. Microwaves pose a particular danger to the eyes, parts of which are much more sensitive to "cooking effects" than the skin and have no surface nerves to warn of overexposure. Cell phones and WAPs do not put out enough power to qualify as dangerous in this regard.

No conclusive link has been demonstrated between non-ionizing radiation and cancer.

The power level doesn't matter. The exposure is what does. Obviously, you're gonna get a whole lot more exposure closer to a source than further away. The exposure limits vary depending on frequency. Most people in the US go by the exposure limits put forth in OET 65 (PDF). The harmful exposure limits are probably much higher.

Read this it pretty much says otherwise:

This is the html version of the file http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/2004broadbandforu m/comments/YDI_externalamps.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:lh4AFv9U208J: wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/2004broadbandforum/comme nts/YDI_externalamps.pdf+site:fcc.gov+802.11+certi fied+system&hl=en

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: 802.11 certified system
Page 1
8000 Lee Highway
Falls Church, VA 22042
703-205-0600
www.ydi.com
Using External Amplifiers and Antennas
in the License-Free Band
By Michael F. Young
President and CTO
YDI Wireless
Introduction
WLAN is moving outdoors: Both for fixed wireless and mobile Hot Zones. Whether or not WLAN
manufacturers intended for their equipment to be used for extended range solutions, more and
more people are using amplifiers to extend the range of their WLAN systems.
With growth in use of amplifiers comes an equal
growth in misunderstandings about the sale and use
of external amplifiers for the license-free bands. This
article discusses some of the technical and legal
issues associated with amplifiers.
To understand amplifiers, one needs to know certain
technical terms. Please read thru this tutorial first:
www.ydi.com/deployinfo/wp-decibels.php
Wh y Use An Amplifier?
Most WLAN cards and Access Points (APs) have
about +15 of dBm (32 mW) of TX power. A few claim
up to +20 dBm (100mW). While this is good for indoor
and short-range links of a hundred feet or so
depending on obstacles, long range (miles) requires
higher transmit power and/or high gain outdoor
antennas. However, when you put the antenna
outdoors to obtain the line-of-sight needed for long
range, the coax cable from the radio to the outdoor
antenna often introduces excessive attenuation to
both the transmit and receive signals.
This figure shows a typical installation of an amplified
single channel WIPOP (Wireless Internet Point of
Presence). For best performance, the amp must be
located at the antenna. This is to have minimum cable
loss from the antenna to the LNA (Low Noise
Amplifier) in the pole-mounted amp to minimize the
Page 2
system noise figure. Likewise, to reach the full transmit power that the system is certified for
requires the amp be placed right at the antenna. In effect, the amp takes the coax cable loss
between the antenna and the radio out of the equation. It also allows for maximum TX power
authorized and typically increases the radio receiver sensitivity by a few dB.
Amplifiers used for Time Division Duplex (TDD) radios such as FHSS and 802.11b DSSS radio
must be bi-directional. Normally, the amplifier is in the receive mode and is amplifying all of the
incoming signals. When the radio, AP or WLAN card transmits, it senses this RF energy and
switches very quickly (less then 600 nanoseconds) into the transmit power amplification mode.
When the transmitter goes off the air, the amp switches back to receive amplification mode.
Customers who use amps sometimes complain, "I don't want to use amps because they amplify
noise and interference on receive." This is true; it amplifies everything across the entire band.
That is what amplifiers do. However, the LNA does three very important things:
1. Boosts the received signal that the antenna pulls in before any appreciable loss

Those housing contracts may not mean a whole lot. The FCC has laid down some restrictions that would pre-empt any such contract. Go here for more information.

j1m+5n0w meet OET Bulletin 63: Clicky

If (when using the Cantenna) you violate the power laws then yes, they're quite illegal.

You really should check the facts. Our system of laws is based as heavily on precedent as it is on the letter of the law, and the precedent in this case is pretty clear: the FCC has the power to govern the airwaves in all 50 states, and several other places.

Don't get me wrong, I think that's total crap. But I think it's total crap for a different reason then you. I think it's crap because I don't think the goverment should have the right to regulate speech on the airwaves through the back door--which is exaclty what they did in the 70's with the "Seven Dirty Words".

First of all Here is the reg sheet on low powered unlicensed transmitters
See Page 2 - Antenna Requirements
Changing the antenna on a transmitter can significantly increase, or decrease, the strength of the signal that is ultimately transmitted. Except for cable locating equipment, the standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low power transmitter that complies with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached. Should this happen it could pose a serious interference problem to authorized radio communications such as emergency, broadcast and air-traffic control communications.
In order to prevent such interference problems, each Part 15 transmitter must be designed to ensure that no type of antenna can be used with it other than the one used to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards. This means that Part 15 transmitters must have permanently attached antennas, or detachable antennas with unique connectors. A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores.
(Section 15.203)
It is recognized that suppliers of Part 15 transmitters often want their customers to be able to replace an antenna if it should break. With this in mind, Part 15 allows transmitters to be designed so that the user can replace a broken antenna. When this is done, the replacement antenna must be electrically identical to the antenna that was used to obtain FCC authorization for the transmitter. The replacement antenna also must include the unique connector described above to ensure it is used with the proper transmitter.
Now here is the stick. So yes, technically under federal law they are.
If the operation of a non-compliant transmitter causes interference to authorized radio communications, the user should stop operating the transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference. However, the person (or company) that sold this non-compliant transmitter to the user has violated the FCC marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law. The act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law. Violators may be subject to an enforcement action by the Commission's Field Operations Bureau that could result in:
Section 15.1
Section 15.5
Section 2.803
Section 2.805
Section 2.1203
o forfeiture of all non-compliant equipment
o $100,000/$200,000 criminal penalty for an individual/organization
o a criminal fine totalling twice the gross gain obtained from sales of the non-compliant equipment
o an administrative fine totalling $10,000/day per violation, up to a maximum of $75,000

You can also see existing comments
Type 05-235 under proceedings and search.

You can also see existing comments
Type 05-235 under proceedings and search.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=10 06400939%7C02-278%7CTelephone%2BConsumer%2BProtect ion%2BAct&Send=Continue

The companies just need to make it that if you haven't yet set up your E911, whenever you try making a call, before the call connects, it gives a voice prompt telling you that E911 is not yet set up

"2. We adopt an immediate E911 requirement that applies to all interconnected VoIP services. In some cases, this requirement relies on the customer to self-report his or her location. We intend in a future order to adopt an advanced E911 solution for interconnected VoIP that must include a method for determining a user's location without assistance from the user as well as firm implementation deadlines for that solution."

Caveat: This article is merely the results of my research, so please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and am not qualified or licensed to disburse legal advice. Corrections to this information are welcomed and desired.

My research would indicate that accessing an open (that is unencrypted) 802.11b/802.11g wireless network is not a federal crime. However, individual states may have enacted their own laws.

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 usdoj.gov:

2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 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, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio; [Ed. FYI the unlicensed spectrum used by Wi-Fi is ruled by part 15.]

I do not believe that Title 18 (Crimes and criminal procedure) of the United States Code, Part I (Crimes), Chapter 47 (Fraud and false statements) Section 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers) from usdoj.gov applies:

1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(a) Whoever--
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access [...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;

Whether or not this would apply would depend on the definition of the term "protected computer". An open netwo