Slashdot Mirror

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

• Low-Income. This program provides telephone service discounts to consumers with qualifying low-incomes.
• High-Cost. This program provides financial support to companies that provide telecommunications services in areas of America where the cost of providing service is high.
• Schools and Libraries. This program helps to ensure that the nation's classrooms and libraries receive access to the vast array of educational resources that are accessible through the telecommunications network.
• Rural Health Care. This program helps to link health care providers located in rural areas to urban medical centers so that patients living in rural America will have access to the same advanced diagnostic and other medical services that are enjoyed in urban communities.

I would have no problem with a broadband universal service fee if it resulted in universal broadband service like we have universal telephone service.

However, since this is not likely to happen soon, it seems like another subsidy to the legacy copper telephone infrastructure, as most of the money collected in USFs get paid back to the telcos to provide the above services.

Community associations do have rules about what can be mounted on the outside of the house, and I know people that have had to take roof mounted antennae down. They and many people consider them eye sores, and rightly so. But anyhow, what the community association can and can't do is a question for a lawyer.

By the way, if you care, and you still know those community associations, here is the page I was talking about. Short version - you can't prevent someone from putting up a rooftop antenna. You can force them to put it in a less visible location, but only if it doesn't make the reception worse and doesn't cost any more. Note that the restriction has to be written that way - if there was a restriction that said "you can't put up TV antennas" then you can perfectly well ignore it, as it isn't a legal restriction. If they try to change it afterwards, they're probably still out of luck, as it'll cost you money and time to move it, and they can't do that, either.

There's also the factor of broadcast TV serving as a public address system in situations of crisis or danger.

Once analog is gone, there is only radio as a 'universal' platform.

That puts our 'public readiness' factor back to the pre-WWII levels.

Most likely (and accoding to the FCC's website http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/digitaltv.htm l) you will at least need a dtv decoder hooked up to your TV, so as long as you don't mind having another box near your existing tv you should be fine.

I think you have confused a law with a mandate from the FCC. Just because there is law authorizing them to act in certain ways does not mean that their decrees are inherently law.

Anyway, this mandate, you are of course referring to: FCC 03-225 around page 50. There is something not specified here though, the cable box is not required to give you over firewire the high-def stream that you are viewing, it just has to supply a stream, and it doesn't take much for such a unit to take a pristine 1080i (or better yet, 1080p) video and dither it down to a nice low bitrate 480i, exactly what many boxes are known to do at the mandate of the cable operator.

• response times to get a phone installed were measured in months
• innovation is one thing that competition does promote and Europeans enjoyed very little of that in phone service for the decades that the govt was the phone company
• the govt was the industry to a large extent so standards bodies generally worked with one hand tied behind their back.
• A "phone company" that was typically a subbureaucracy of the post office bureaucracy was a place where motivation to improve service would be stifled.

Great! Now that Cable is officially an "information service" (today's ruling) and Internet is an "information service"(FCC 96-488). Then previous rulings regarding ISPs accessing channels via leased access should be overturned.

I quote from the FCC website http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html:

"Channel set-aside requirements were established in proportion to a system's total activated channel capacity, in order to 'assure that the widest possible diversity of information sources are made available to the public from cable systems in a manner consistent with the growth and development of cable systems.'"

A company called IVI tried this before around the same time. It fell on the FCC's ears with a resounding thud. One comment I remember is that they did not, at the time, consider the Internet an information service.

Cable companies are tiny municipal monopolies. The FCC has found in the past that they try to lock out competition so they established the framework required promote that competition. Why don't they use it?

While I agree with your overall post, I just want to clarify a couple of things.

First, the FCC is only mandating that all TV be able to accept a digital signal, not necessarily be HD capable. DigitalHD.

Also, as for the Xbox, yeah, it might be $149, but realize at this point, Microsoft is still supporting the console with a loss on every purchase, so it does not really tell us the cost of the HD components.

In the end though, I agree that Nintendo would be better off in the long run by supporting HD in the Revolution

It is possible to transmit FM signals unlicenced, as you can probably find from your iTrip, etc. You can find the regulation on it here: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html

Not to burst your personal and rabid conspiracy theory, but Powell left the administration in March, as this chart illustrates.

A while back there was a neighborhood movement in my area against a cell phone tower. I didn't really have an opinion on the matter at the time. I still don't.

Dan Bricklin had two interesting log entries (1), (2) on this topic.

There are pages at the FCC website here and here on RF safety considerations.

Find towers near you.

A while back there was a neighborhood movement in my area against a cell phone tower. I didn't really have an opinion on the matter at the time. I still don't.

Dan Bricklin had two interesting log entries (1), (2) on this topic.

There are pages at the FCC website here and here on RF safety considerations.

Find towers near you.

That one won't fly, no matter how badly they want it. It's illegal.

I am licensed to talk to Cubans legally, from right here in th

I am licensed to talk to Cubans legally, from right here in th

Actually, they will be turned off in 2007 (when all TVs are required to have DTV tuners):

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

Derek

Putting a signal on an antenna will obviously result in radiation, yes. What's not obvious though, is how much, and how quickly it falls off with distance. It's not clear to me if the entire line radiates and therefore it drops off as 1/R, or if (as some claim), it will instead fall off with 1/R^2 or 1/R^4. Add to the fact that they're notching the public frequencies, and I don't think we can necessarily trust the article's author at his (clearly biased) word that "there will be interference."

I don't know enough about this to say if anyone is right or wrong, but I do suggest reading the author's disclosure at the end of his article, and considering that the ARRL has an established position on this issue, and one that may be more emotional than rational, in the final analysis. It's also not clear from my quick read of the article if interference has been demonstrated from BPL lines complying with the new FCC rules for BPL

Interesting idea, but Amateur Radio is restricted to non-commercial use. "The Amateur Radio Service is a voluntary noncommercial communication service, used by qualified persons of any age who are interested in radio technique with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest" (FCC Website).

There was already a provision that if less than 85% of a specific market isn't able to receive a digital transmission, then the analog transmissions in that market are not required to go dark:

The transition period to DTV is currently scheduled to end on December 31, 2006. This transition period is subject to periodic progress reviews by the FCC to make sure DTV service is widely available. In addition, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, passed last fall by the Congress, includes provisions that would extend the continuation of analog service beyond the year 2006 deadline if DTV is implemented more slowly than expected. Specific conditions which would extend the transition period include the failure of one or more of the largest TV stations in a market to begin broadcasting digital TV signals through no fault of their own, or fewer than 85% of the TV households in a market are able to receive digital TV signals off the air either with a digital TV set or with an analog set equipped with a converter box or by subscription to a cable-type service that carries the DTV stations in the market.

There are two kinds of federal administrative agencies: executive and independent. The President can fire the head of an executive agency at his whim.

Independent agencies, like the FCC, are not under the President's control because they do not serve at his pleasure.

They may do some things that seem like executive acts, but the President does not have control over them... Congress does.

Look here.

Well I am happy there isn't a broadcasting flag anymore but what about firewire ports on cable boxes?

If you look at the ruling "FCC Eases Digital TV Transition for Consumers."(PDF) it states that all digital cable boxes must have a firewire port. This port is used to control the box and record from it. Now this has been in effect for a while now, although it takes alot of effort and showing your cable company this pdf article to get them to give you a box that has a firewire port and that port is enabled. My concern is the ruling seems to also removes the FCC's power in this area as well.

And the worst part is MythTV just started supporting recording over firewire...

Well I am happy there isn't a broadcasting flag anymore but what about firewire ports on cable boxes?

If you look at the ruling "FCC Eases Digital TV Transition for Consumers."(PDF) it states that all digital cable boxes must have a firewire port. This port is used to control the box and record from it. Now this has been in effect for a while now, although it takes alot of effort and showing your cable company this pdf article to get them to give you a box that has a firewire port and that port is enabled. My concern is the ruling seems to also removes the FCC's power in this area as well.

And the worst part is MythTV just started supporting recording over firewire...

My cell phone is equipped with E911, which sends my GPS coordinates when (and only when) I make a 911 call. The GPS location is calculated by triangulating nearby towers. This way, the cell network has a very good idea of which 911 to connect me to, and the 911 operator has a general idea of where I am. I'm not sure how accurate this GPS is exactly, but it sure beats only knowing what the closest cell tower was.

Plus, since the GPS is only sent with the call when you call 911 (unless you set it to go with all calls), there is little risk of a privacy violation.

an interesting thing you can see if you open one of the PDF on the FCC website, like the one on the X41 is that it is 210mm*297mm, also known as A4 standard paper.

No, time will not tell. If you had clicked on the "FCC doc 1" (and 2, 3) links, you'd find that they lead to PDFs hosted at FCC.gov (the Federal Communications Commission home page). The FCC documents are part of the FCC approval process (something most electronics have to go through, including computers). So, as long as you trust the FCC, then yeah, those are facts.

For the lazy:

• Document 1
• Document 2
• Document 3

No, time will not tell. If you had clicked on the "FCC doc 1" (and 2, 3) links, you'd find that they lead to PDFs hosted at FCC.gov (the Federal Communications Commission home page). The FCC documents are part of the FCC approval process (something most electronics have to go through, including computers). So, as long as you trust the FCC, then yeah, those are facts.

For the lazy:

• Document 1
• Document 2
• Document 3

No, time will not tell. If you had clicked on the "FCC doc 1" (and 2, 3) links, you'd find that they lead to PDFs hosted at FCC.gov (the Federal Communications Commission home page). The FCC documents are part of the FCC approval process (something most electronics have to go through, including computers). So, as long as you trust the FCC, then yeah, those are facts.

For the lazy:

• Document 1
• Document 2
• Document 3

You're right, but you're about nine years out of date :) Now it's AROW with one 'r'

A=Airworthiness Certificate
R=Registration
O=Operating limitations
W=Weight and balance

You can read about the change here:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/aviation/fctsht4.html

This is just the flight instuctor in me coming out, I don't mean to bore almost everyone :)

Not to piss on your wet dream, but:

WiMax supports huge distances, sure. But in order to avoid needing a line of sight with the tower, you need to use low frequencies - that multiple-tens-of-GHz mumbo-jumbo is useless for penetrating things like trees, buildings, and cars.

Thankfully, old analog TV spectrum (such as the lower 700MHz band) is suitable and available for use in this way.

But realize that there's only so much information bandwidth that can be squeezed out of a slice of spectrum, and that the further you cast your signal, the more devices that are likely to be competing for that available bandwidth. So, "30-50 mile" range may not be as advantageous as you might think.

And it's all licensed and auctioned off to the highest bidder, in much the same way as existing cellular frequencies were/are. The end-user equipment doesn't even exist yet, and there's certainly no economy of scale advantage over traditional cellular phones (and there may never be, depending on how this spectrum ends up actually being used).

To top it off, it's extremely likely that the existing rules governing handheld cellular telephones to 600 mW ERP will be carried over to the lower 700's devices, if the rules aren't applicable already.

And -that- means that you'll never get more than a few miles of range. Which means again a landscape peppered with hideously expensive towers for reasonable coverage patterns.

Which is just like cellular phones operate, today. Except it's WiMax instead of CDMA.

On the other hand, it will open up the market to new players. Which will increase competition, and probably lower prices overall.

And in any event, the technology itself is not any cheaper simply by virtue of NOT being CDMA, GSM, or PCS. It's still governed by physics, the FCC, and market forces.

Even better is the FCC's page for doing fccid searches! https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/ GenericSearch.cfm

There's an FCC power restriction of about 20mW per channel for 802.11.

You can crank up the power but you have to pay off the FCC first, see auctions.

To me the selling off of public airways to the highest bidder amounts to a totally corrupt system where cell phone providers, as one example, have to give the FCC millions and then stick it to the consumer in what is basically a tax on the electromagnetic spectrum.

Complain to the FCC here and then write your Congressional representatives (figure out who your representatives are here. If you cant take the time to figure out how to do this properly, then you must not care that much.

Buy a license from FCC and then use their power to prosecute anyone who transmits on your licensed frequency. They have the power to shut down anyone who squats on licensed spectrum.

You're missing the big picture here (and I actually disagree with the grandparent--Vonage should be sued over this issue).

That's great that it was really clear to you that 911 was going to work differently. Unfortunately for you, the person who finds you incapacitated might not realize that 911 doesn't work the same way on your "phone" as it does on every other phone that they've ever used. And given that people are not always in the clearest state of mind during emergencies, it might take a little longer for them to get emergency personnel to your location. When *you're* the one bleeding out and 5 minutes makes a difference between life and death, are you going to take comfort in the fact that Vonage may deliver your phone call to the non-emergency police numbers?

Did you know that any cell phone that can talk to a tower is *required* to be able to call 911, even if the person doesn't actually pay for service? Did you know the same thing is true for a phone that you have plugged into the wall? Why is Vonage any different then any other phone service provider (cell or landline?) The answer is, they're not. Or at least they cannot claim to be. You cannot claim to be a replacement for a phone company if you don't provide all of the critical services that a phone company would provide. It's false advertising. And it's not in the public's best interests.

Personal responsibility is NOT the issue here. Personal responsibility is when YOU take responsibility for your actions (as you did when you put your name on your post). Not when someone else takes responsibility for their actions. How could the girl's actions have been better? Could she have told the intruders to take responsibility for themselves? That's utter stupidity.

Furthermore, it's not even the little girl that is suing Vonage here. It's the state of Texas. And they're suing because of the reasons I just indicated. Offering a replacement for phone service and not giving 911 services is utterly ludicrous.

Trying to answer my own question, here is rule as it applies to wireless, still looking for land-line. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911sr vc.html

Yeah, I'm sure the 'status quo phone industry' is behind all this. THEY mistated the 911 service for Vonage. THEY set the TxAG on Vonage. Hell, they probably shot those parents to get the whole process moving.

Most cell phones do have 911 access (at least in the US) and carriers are required to comply by the end of this year. I'm sure some companies will get waivers, but obviously SOMEONE has complained. Your fact filter is set to hight I think.

Check out Enhanced 911 - Wireless Services for more info. Of course, the GPS tracking thing is more fuel for the YRO fire:\

Please read these before buying/using these phones...

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-453A1.html
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2474A1.htm l

4. On July 27, 2001, agents from the Miami Office visited Lightning's retail store located at 231 E. Flagler Street, Unit #1, Miami, Florida. The agents saw several long-range, cordless telephones on display at the store, including a Super Phone CT-9000, a Prolink CT-6000CID, and an Optima OP8810. A salesperson
offered to sell one of the units to the agents. The long-range cordless telephones displayed at the store were capable of causing serious interference to aviation communications and were
not approved6 by the Commission for use in the United States.

Please read these before buying/using these phones...

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-453A1.html
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2474A1.htm l

4. On July 27, 2001, agents from the Miami Office visited Lightning's retail store located at 231 E. Flagler Street, Unit #1, Miami, Florida. The agents saw several long-range, cordless telephones on display at the store, including a Super Phone CT-9000, a Prolink CT-6000CID, and an Optima OP8810. A salesperson
offered to sell one of the units to the agents. The long-range cordless telephones displayed at the store were capable of causing serious interference to aviation communications and were
not approved6 by the Commission for use in the United States.

Bruce

"FCC rules prohibit local governments, landlords, community associations, or similar groups from restricting a resident from installing and using an antenna that is covered under the OTARD rules. These rules only apply to properties or areas of properties that the antenna user owns, leases or rents and areas where the user has exclusive use or control. The rules apply to properties used for commercial purposes just as they apply to residential properties."

First, the old and new band plans would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

The realignment of the band is underway as of January 10. The stated purpose of the realignment is creating a place for innovative broadband technologies, especially those that will serve rural markets. If you want to apply for a license, here's the web page. (A starting point only.)

Nextel, MCI and Sprint only? That begs evidence. While Sprint and others have a strong presence in the market, they are far from monopolizing anything. In many markets, they have to lease stations owned by others. As to the sentiment that all licenses are gone, and if anything pops up, it will be auctioned, again that begs for evidence. Got to the FCC ULS search, and enter callsign WQBG566. They were granted a BRS license the end of September. (They are in group MD-- commercial, not in the VX educational group.) I'm sure there are more recent grants, I'm just to lazy/busy to track down others. With the links I've given here, it shouldn't be too hard to get tons of info.

It's just that I'm too busy/lazy. Did I mention that? ;-)

If you are interested in the hardware for BRS spectrum, check out Navini's website. Their (near WiMax) NLOS equipment is available for several licensed bands.

First, the old and new band plans would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

The realignment of the band is underway as of January 10. The stated purpose of the realignment is creating a place for innovative broadband technologies, especially those that will serve rural markets. If you want to apply for a license, here's the web page. (A starting point only.)

Nextel, MCI and Sprint only? That begs evidence. While Sprint and others have a strong presence in the market, they are far from monopolizing anything. In many markets, they have to lease stations owned by others. As to the sentiment that all licenses are gone, and if anything pops up, it will be auctioned, again that begs for evidence. Got to the FCC ULS search, and enter callsign WQBG566. They were granted a BRS license the end of September. (They are in group MD-- commercial, not in the VX educational group.) I'm sure there are more recent grants, I'm just to lazy/busy to track down others. With the links I've given here, it shouldn't be too hard to get tons of info.

It's just that I'm too busy/lazy. Did I mention that? ;-)

If you are interested in the hardware for BRS spectrum, check out Navini's website. Their (near WiMax) NLOS equipment is available for several licensed bands.

First, the old and new band plans would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

The realignment of the band is underway as of January 10. The stated purpose of the realignment is creating a place for innovative broadband technologies, especially those that will serve rural markets. If you want to apply for a license, here's the web page. (A starting point only.)

Nextel, MCI and Sprint only? That begs evidence. While Sprint and others have a strong presence in the market, they are far from monopolizing anything. In many markets, they have to lease stations owned by others. As to the sentiment that all licenses are gone, and if anything pops up, it will be auctioned, again that begs for evidence. Got to the FCC ULS search, and enter callsign WQBG566. They were granted a BRS license the end of September. (They are in group MD-- commercial, not in the VX educational group.) I'm sure there are more recent grants, I'm just to lazy/busy to track down others. With the links I've given here, it shouldn't be too hard to get tons of info.

It's just that I'm too busy/lazy. Did I mention that? ;-)

If you are interested in the hardware for BRS spectrum, check out Navini's website. Their (near WiMax) NLOS equipment is available for several licensed bands.

First, the old and new band plans would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

The realignment of the band is underway as of January 10. The stated purpose of the realignment is creating a place for innovative broadband technologies, especially those that will serve rural markets. If you want to apply for a license, here's the web page. (A starting point only.)

Nextel, MCI and Sprint only? That begs evidence. While Sprint and others have a strong presence in the market, they are far from monopolizing anything. In many markets, they have to lease stations owned by others. As to the sentiment that all licenses are gone, and if anything pops up, it will be auctioned, again that begs for evidence. Got to the FCC ULS search, and enter callsign WQBG566. They were granted a BRS license the end of September. (They are in group MD-- commercial, not in the VX educational group.) I'm sure there are more recent grants, I'm just to lazy/busy to track down others. With the links I've given here, it shouldn't be too hard to get tons of info.

It's just that I'm too busy/lazy. Did I mention that? ;-)

If you are interested in the hardware for BRS spectrum, check out Navini's website. Their (near WiMax) NLOS equipment is available for several licensed bands.

First, the old and new band plans would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

The realignment of the band is underway as of January 10. The stated purpose of the realignment is creating a place for innovative broadband technologies, especially those that will serve rural markets. If you want to apply for a license, here's the web page. (A starting point only.)

Nextel, MCI and Sprint only? That begs evidence. While Sprint and others have a strong presence in the market, they are far from monopolizing anything. In many markets, they have to lease stations owned by others. As to the sentiment that all licenses are gone, and if anything pops up, it will be auctioned, again that begs for evidence. Got to the FCC ULS search, and enter callsign WQBG566. They were granted a BRS license the end of September. (They are in group MD-- commercial, not in the VX educational group.) I'm sure there are more recent grants, I'm just to lazy/busy to track down others. With the links I've given here, it shouldn't be too hard to get tons of info.

It's just that I'm too busy/lazy. Did I mention that? ;-)

If you are interested in the hardware for BRS spectrum, check out Navini's website. Their (near WiMax) NLOS equipment is available for several licensed bands.

First, the old and new band plans would help illustrate things. When someone was granted an MMDS or ITFS license, they received permission for certain channels. Typically, people applied for omnidirectional coverage, giving them a protected 35 mile circle. Most markets aren't saturated-- the problem has been consumer acceptance. (Markets have tended to be specialized niche markets. Satellite based DBS arose and answered most of the market need MMDS was envisioned to serve.)

The realignment of the band is underway as of January 10. The stated purpose of the realignment is creating a place for innovative broadband technologies, especially those that will serve rural markets. If you want to apply for a license, here's the web page. (A starting point only.)

Nextel, MCI and Sprint only? That begs evidence. While Sprint and others have a strong presence in the market, they are far from monopolizing anything. In many markets, they have to lease stations owned by others. As to the sentiment that all licenses are gone, and if anything pops up, it will be auctioned, again that begs for evidence. Got to the FCC ULS search, and enter callsign WQBG566. They were granted a BRS license the end of September. (They are in group MD-- commercial, not in the VX educational group.) I'm sure there are more recent grants, I'm just to lazy/busy to track down others. With the links I've given here, it shouldn't be too hard to get tons of info.

It's just that I'm too busy/lazy. Did I mention that? ;-)

If you are interested in the hardware for BRS spectrum, check out Navini's website. Their (near WiMax) NLOS equipment is available for several licensed bands.

That would be unlicensed operation in the TV bands, now being standardized by IEEE 802.22, the newest 802 working group.

Actually, lots of other people have identified the specific problems this kind of licensing poses for low power apps, like WiFi mesh, that offer real local community value. Shortsighted dismissal of that conflict plays right into the hands of large corporate interests, like Intel's, which were protected by this process, despite lots of public opposition.

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


News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
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 v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).

NEWS MEDIA CONTACTS:
Bruce Romano at (202) 418-2124
Bruce.romano@fcc.gov
Lauren Patrich at (202) 418-7944
Lauren.patrich@fcc.gov




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 10, 2005


FCC OPENS ACCESS TO NEW SPECTRUM FOR WIRELESS BROADBAND IN THE 3650 MHZ BAND

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted rules to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3650-3700 MHz band (3650 MHz). The Commission adopted a hybrid approach that draws from both the Commission's unlicensed and licensed regulatory models and provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations in the band utilizing technologies employing contention-based protocols. This streamlined licensing mechanism with minimal regulatory entry requirements will encourage multiple new entrants and stimulate the rapid expansion of wireless broadband services -- especially in rural America -- by Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) and other entities with limited resources. The Commission also provided an opportunity for the introduction at 3650 MHz of a variety of new wireless broadband technologies, such as Wi-Max, into the band.

Under the Commission's approach, there is no limit on the number of licenses that can be granted, and each licensee will be authorized to operate on a shared basis with other licensees on all 50 megahertz of the band, subject to restrictions in geographic areas occupied by grandfathered Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Federal Government stations. Licensees will also be required to register all system base stations electronically with the Commission. Base station registration will enable licensees to locate each other's operations and will facilitate protection of grandfathered stations from interference. This type of licensing and registration will enable the Commission to monitor the use of this spectrum as new technologies and services develop.

The Commission found that the public record developed in this proceeding supports multiple users sharing this spectrum through the use of "contention-based" protocols to minimize interference among fixed and mobile operations. New fixed and mobile stations will therefore be required to use contention-based protocols, which will reduce the possibility of interference from co-frequency operation by managing each station's access to spectrum. The Commission concluded that this approach is a reasonable, cost-effective method for ensuring that multiple users can access the spectrum.

The Commission gave all licensees the mutual obligation to cooperate and avoid harmful interference to one another. Mobile stations also will be required to positively receive and decode an enabling signal transmitted by a base station. The Commission determined that this approach will ensure that mobile stations operate within range of registered base stations, thereby avoiding interference to grandfathered FSS and Federal Government stations. Fixed stations will be allowed to operate with a peak power limit of 25 Watts per 25 megahertz bandwidth, and mobile stations with a peak power limit of 1 Watt per 25 megahertz bandwidth.

The Commission kept the existing allocations for the band, grandfathering previously licensed primary incumbent FSS earth station operations and three Federal Government radiolocation stations, entitling them to interference protection from