Slashdot Mirror

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

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

Why don't they require something useful, like a boob-cast flag?
Then I could set my DVR to only record shows with the BCF set to 'TRUE'.

They already did, it is called the v-chip -- almost all tv's manufactured since 2000 have a v-chip, almost all programming contains v-chip readable flags. The v-chip flag isn't applied to news or live sports, so you would not have automatically grabbed Janet's teat, but otherwise just about every broadcast program is flagged.

But of course, having a technical solution to this "indecency" problem is no solution at all, the real goal of the people behind the "decency" brouhaha is to control the content of the airwaves. The v-chip gives control to the owner of the TV, not the owners of the tv broadcasters. So, we'll be sure to pass more laws restricting contaact and pretend that we are really legislating decency and morality.

I'm not suggesting that cable isn't regulated, but I am suggesting it isn't regulated by the rules that regulate broadcast TV.

In fact, the FCC seems to agree with me according to a document on their web page.

So, the cable operator is not responsible for content it doesn't actually generate. It must provide a mechanism to allow subscribers to block channels that they find objectionable.

Originators of content are required to provide ratings for the material that they produce, and the ratings must appear for 15 seconds at the beginning of the program.

The Comedy Channel also seems to agree with my interpretation. They presented Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker uncut and uncensored. I doubt it could be presented on broadcast TV. They clearly know that presenting this will boost ratings because they present it as being indecent. I believe the phrase they use is "curse along at home".

Comedy Central understands their audience, and they understand what their sponsers can handle. If they thought they would lose listeners or advertisers because of Chris Rock, they'd never do it. They may also consider what the FCC might try to do, but I don't think the FCC could succeed. It's a lame argument, but the courts decided that the FCC can regulate broadcast media because it goes out over the air and nothing can stop it. It would be hard for a couple of kids with a transistor radio to sit at the railroad tracks or hang out behind the 7-11 and watch comedy central without their parents knowing.

Other networks make other choices. I doubt the Lifetime Channel is going to put Chris Rock's routine on uncensored. However, I think it has more to do with fears of losing their audience than fears of anything the FCC could do.

Having said all that, I think it's all bullshit. As long as there is an off button on TV's and radios, there should be no other censorship

Michael K. Powell is Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Powell was nominated by President William J. Clinton to a Republican seat on the Commission, and was sworn in on November 3, 1997. He was designated chairman by President George W. Bush on January 22, 2001.

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biogra phy.html

Don't be so quick to blame things on those who oppose your views.

As of January 1, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all new television sets 13 inches or larger to contain the V-chip technology

WHICH THEY DID AFTER CONGRESS PASSED A LAW ALLOWING THEM TO.

You really missed the point.
If the FCC is going to have expanded powers, they have to be given them by congress.

If congress passed a law requiring all TVs to be broadcast flag compliant, then the FCC would have a mandate to enforce it. The FCC cannot, on their own, decide to place arbitrary requirements on electronic devices.

...is FireWire used as the only standard on all digital and HDV camcorders, professional cameras, and decks and VTRs?

...is FireWire required on all digital HD set top boxes beginning 1 July 2005?

...do all these high end consumer, "prosumer", and professional AV and computing devices ship with FireWire?

FireWire is *far superior* to USB 2.0 - for the things that its used for. We're not talking about keyboards and mice and printers here. We're talking about a high-speed, peer-to-peer (unlike USB, which requires a host) serial connection standard that USB 2.0 simply can't touch for many tasks. Just because you see overlap between them and USB is used for normal desktop peripherals doesn't mean USB "won".

If FireWire lost anywhere, it wasn't in computing. It was in the AV world: there was a chance to have FireWire be the universal connection standard for all AV equipment.

Imagine a cable that not only carries video and audio, but isn't intended for "final output", and also can carry control information between devices, and every device is a peer: picture one, single FireWire cable running between each of your devices, essentially chained off of one another, and each device automatically recognizing any other devices available, and self-configuring to expose the correct settings and options for dealing with those device(s), being completely hot-pluggable and dynamic, and also working seamlessly with your computer.

Yes, that really was the promise of FireWire.

Much of the failure in that realm is due to two things:

- Apple's early insistence to charge $1/port on each device that used FireWire/IEEE-1394 ports, and the requirement to use Apple's old FireWire logo (which included an Apple logo) to use the name "FireWire", which is inarguably the name that would have taken the standard the farthest; now Apple allows free licensing of the FireWire name; and

- Content providers' deathly fear of ALL of your devices - including your computer and recording devices - being able to communicate with each other easily, seamlessly, and digitally

(And, no, NO OTHER CURRENT STANDARD, including HDMI or any USB standard, could do everything FireWire could have done. Oh well.)

Your mistake is thinking of USB and FireWire as competing standards. They really aren't (except in the area of desktop storage device connectivity - see this post for a concise summary). Yes, USB is everywhere. And uh, in case you didn't notice, you have Apple in large part to thank for that with the original iMac, in which Apple included it in 1997, eliminating legacy ports - and the floppy drive - thus creating a burgeoning USB peripheral market that helped the PC world make the transition much easier (that it STILL hasn't really made...)

Nice troll, though!

I agree with the premise that the FCC should not regulate matters that involve copyright, particularly technical attempts to violate established case law (the aforementioned Sony case).

OTOH, amateur radio operators are not allowed to listen to the cell phone part of the radio spectrum. See http://wireless.fcc.gov/ or (watered down) http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/interception. html

Stop talking out of your hat.

-a licensed ham operator

I agree with the premise that the FCC should not regulate matters that involve copyright, particularly technical attempts to violate established case law (the aforementioned Sony case).

OTOH, amateur radio operators are not allowed to listen to the cell phone part of the radio spectrum. See http://wireless.fcc.gov/ or (watered down) http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/interception. html

Stop talking out of your hat.

-a licensed ham operator

> I hate to interrupt a Bush-bashing session with facts, but Powell was appointed by the previous administration

Where do you get your "facts", Fox News?

Powell was a Dubya appointee.

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biogra phy.html

...that is, unless the washing machine somehow interefered with FCC Part 15 regulations by virtue of having a DC motor and all.

He [U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards] said the FCC "crossed the line" beyond its authority approved by Congress. "You've gone too far," he said. "Are washing machines next?"

...Another circuit judge, David Sentelle, agreed...

"You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world.

This is what the Bush FCC appears to have planned for you.

Oh no! Bias! How can I trust any of this information when you're biased?

Ha ha ha, just kidding.

Really? From Chairman Powell's biography:

"Michael K. Powell is Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Powell was nominated by President William J. Clinton to a Republican seat on the Commission, and was sworn in on November 3, 1997. He was designated chairman by President George W. Bush on January 22, 2001."

I think this has been going on longer than you think.

BTW, interesting links to those PDFs... care to give a veiw through the mist of leagalease? I can't make much out of them. For instance, what are "Computer Inqury rules", and how would they apply here?

Yes, you're correct- I screwed up. Those are the wrong dockets. Someone with a mod point- please mod down my original post.

This is 04-405
and
this is 04-440
(Warning, PDF)

You can tell I didn't read the originals too closely. But these look like the correct ones.

This is what the Bush FCC appears to have planned for you.

Oh no! Bias! How can I trust any of this information when you're biased?

Ha ha ha, just kidding.
Docket #04-405
Docket #04-440
(warning: PDFs)

Remember, this is what "economic freedom" is all about. I don't want the government telling me what traffic I can and can't block with my Baby Bell. That would be communism- and we all know how that turned out.

This is what the Bush FCC appears to have planned for you.

Oh no! Bias! How can I trust any of this information when you're biased?

Ha ha ha, just kidding.
Docket #04-405
Docket #04-440
(warning: PDFs)

Remember, this is what "economic freedom" is all about. I don't want the government telling me what traffic I can and can't block with my Baby Bell. That would be communism- and we all know how that turned out.

the list of domain names is a list of domains that spammers can't send email to not a list of spammer domain names. Look at this.
If spammers send email TO these domains they will get fined 11k, not if they send them from those domains.
Blah, yet another story slashdot mangled, does noone proofread stories before they go out, or are all the moderators too busy tripping over each other to get the moderator equivlent of "first post".

Yes.

Enhanced 911 Services, or 911 trunks to each PSAP in markets served by $VoIP_Company both solve this problem. Neither is manditory, but many providers offer it to achieve parity with POTS features.

E911 is not just for wireless anymore. Here's another good link:

http://www.911dispatch.com/information/voip.html

Quotes from http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

And last but not least, the "Broadcast Flag" is going to be a total and complete failure.. just like the "V-Chip."

Yes... except... here it comes... EVERY TV IN YOUR HOME PROBABLY HAS THE V-CHIP IN IT!!!

From the FCC website:

Pursuant to the Commission's rules, half of all new television models 13 inches or larger manufactured after July 1, 1999, and all sets 13 inches or larger manufactured after January 1, 2000 must have V-Chip technology.

How exactly is that a "failure"?

Dear Michael Moore:

Get your facts straight. Powell and the FCC were heavily involved.

Oh, while your getting the facts in order, learn to use google.

Thanks,
concerned reader

If you don't want your children to see sex, drugs, etc on TV, why not use the V-Chip? I realize you can't watch them every second but technology has actually been mandated by the FCC that can solve this problem for you. It's not reasonable for you to tell me that I can't receive this stuff over the air - they're my airwaves too - if it were up to your way of thinking we couldn't have free porn on the internet, either. You want information to be restricted, but it behaves as if it wants to be free, because of those of us actually interested in freedom.

You want the government to do your job as a parent and protect your children from seeing things on the box that you paid for and put in your house, and which probably contains hardware which will allow you to prevent them from watching that content, even though it costs me the ability to see that kind of content without paying for cable.

A line has to be drawn somewhere - and I believe it is in between your convenience and my freedom.

Here's a link to the original FCC filing : http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6516887764

The tivocomunity posting has more FCC links and discussion.

Older FCC filings were an interesting source of information about TiVoToGo and the DRM arguments TiVo was having with content providers.

Hello,

Howard Stern actually called into an interview Michael Powell was doing with KGO radio in San Francisco last October. Interesting enough, one of Howard Stern's main complaints was the FCC was preventing Viacom from buying stations.

More information (MP3, transcript) can be found at Boing Boing.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

I don't know where you've gotten this "No 911 with VoIP" idea from.

I work for a telco/ISP/VoIP provider, and we've offer 911 services standard with all VoIP services. It's the same E911 service that cell carriers are providing.

And most major VoIP industry players offer it as a standard, or at least optional, feature.

Cell carriers are legally bound to provide E911 services (stage 1). VoIP carriers are not, but most serious providers do anyway, to have feature parity with the POTS market.

http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/quarter.h tml
Universal Service Fund. %10.7 tax on almost all forms of communication including cable internet. In addition, local governments (state, county, parish/township/town) also impose taxes on cable. In having the state require taxes on the internet providers, they are having them "fund" their own internet service in the same example as with Coke and Pepsi above.

You GNU hippies should buy an FCC license, reserve some frequencies, develop hardware and communication protocols for data transmission, and then use it for wireless networking.

Stop ripping off IEEE's hard work.

I had AT&T wireless do the exact same thing. Cancelled the phone when it was well past the contract and ended up getting a call from a collection agent. Any calls to AT&T were met by "that account has gone into collection, you are going to have to talk to them." Of course all calls to the collection agency were met by "This is what AT&T says, we can't adjust the balances" or my favourite - "just pay it and you can argue with AT&T for a refund."

I ended up calling the State Attorney General who sent me to this site at the FCC. There is an online complaint form that you can fill out and one of the options is "Contract - Early Termination"

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm/

About a month later I got a call from AT&T who agreed to take out the early termination, but is still saying I owe them money for overage. So its not resolved yet, but at least the FCC form got AT&T to call and talk to me.

And I figure that someone keeps a tally of complaints at the FCC. Hopefully with enough people filing complaints against unfair practices we can see some change.

They WILL shut you down if you're unintentionally/unknowingly also broadcasting noise on other spectrums, especially air traffic related bands, regardless of whether you picked a frequency not currently occupied by any other radio station. Unless you've got a radio spectrum analyzer and thoroughly tested all the surrounding frequencies for differences between when your equipment is on or off, you'd probably never know that you were interfering with some other range until they came to pay you a visit...

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-237745 A1.html

Sorry, but according to FCC regs (PDF), it is illegal to sell a transmitter that is not type-accepted. From page 27: "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."

If you offer to sell that transmitter you just bought, then you would be in violation too.

I bought a Ramsey FM-25B off eBay, but the FCC went to the seller's house and seized it under the rules listed above before he shipped it. I was able to verify with the FCC that they did seize it, and that he wasn't jerking my chain.

Page three of that same document talks about legal use and construction of home-built (i.e. non-type-accepted) FM transmitters.

It is absolutely untrue that unlicensed transmitters at 100mW or less are legal in the FM broadcast band in the U.S.

Well, actually, it is true that some unlicensed transmitters at 100mW or less are legal in the FM broadcast band. But only those that operate at far, far less than 100mW.

I'm really surprised that the person who wrote the original article (i.e., the one who posted on technocrat.net) admits to being a ham operator, but then seems to know nothing about part 15 of the FCC regulations. If you want to know all about the limitations on unlicensed operation, you need to know part 15 -- no excuses. And the 100mW limitation applies ONLY to unlicensed transmissions in the AM broadcast band, and NOWHERE ELSE. Instead, each band in which any kind of unlicensed transmission is permitted is subject to its OWN RULES.

See: FCC rule regarding unlicensed operation in the band 88-108 MHz (Note that although this document is served by akamaitech.net, the source of the document is the U.S. Government printing office)

FCC PDF document with all you ever wanted to know about unlicensed operations under Part 15

Ramsey Electronics kit page with FCC information regarding lawful use of low power transmitter kits

American Radio Relay League (ARRL) information on part 15 of the FCC rules (The ARRL is the largest national organization for ham radio operators)

Note that the actual permitted field strength for unlicensed operation translates into the a signal of only a few nanowatts -- around the single digit range -- certainly not anything even remotely resembling 100 milliwatts!

Thus, the immediate parent of this comment should be modded WAY down -- it certainly isn't "informative." If anything, it is perpetuating misinformation that could get someone into serious trouble.

The FCC has monitoring stations throughout the U.S.

And for many areas without stations they are quite infamous for little black vans with lots of antennas on top and very small white letters that say "FCC"

The FCC are not idle people, and they not only track you down (if you are radiating RF it's emberassingly easy in case you didn't already know), but they confiscate your equipment also, and you will not see it again. Also, you might have to come up with serious cash for the fines.

Contrary to what you might think, they still chase after CBers with illegal amps too.

I'm someone with a ham license, and am somewhat disappointed with Bruce for advertising something like this, as it goes against the ham ethos of responsible use of technology (esp. radio). If not for his own sake, but for others that will ignorantly decide not to go with the seemingly innocent 100mw version, but those who decide bigger is better and move up to 3 watts, which blows the doors off part 15.

I say seemingly innocent, because if you pump this out your standard home fm antenna as suggested by some, these are almost always a yagi that has gain and will certainly exceed the 250uW at 3 meters.

If enough of these pop up, you can count on NAB to become the next dirty acronym on slashdot, as they become more proactive in squelching (pun convenient) the competition. Except that these guys have a vast amount of caselaw/FCC resources to help back themselves up with.

I truly believe that there is a need for Low Power FM broadcasting, contary to what NAB and NPR propaganda tells you. But breaking the law rather than working to change it is not the way here.

I can't help but wonder if Bruce didn't confuse AM Band with FM band concerning power levels. Without pulling out my calculator, I don't see how 100mW can be legal for FM unless you are using an extremely long length of coax. I believe that the max you can have going to the antenna is around 1 mW.

I hate to take of the rose colored glasses on this one, but it's a bad idea all the way around.

Yes, they do. But unless anyone reports you, you have a huge antenna, you're putting out a lot of power, or your harmonics are stepping on someone else's band, you're probably safe.

If you just want a radio station in your home it would seem to make more sense to use a Carrier Current transmitter. What this guy is doing is pretty damn illegal and if you do what he did you can be looking at tens of thousands of dollars in fines!

From what I can tell anyone can setup a Carrier Current station(check for yourself), you can find some pretty cheap kits.

This guy doesn't seem to be all there, he says he has a HAM licence, but is stupidly violating FCC laws. He also says the thing has a BNC type connector but the picture looks like a type RG6 connector.

On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters).

source:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html
see also:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf

Bottom line:
The transmitter described is not even close to complying with FCC regs. FCC compliance depends not only on transmitter power, but also on antenna gain and several other factors. You cannot simply say "X milliwatts is safe". Not only that, but 100mW into almost any antenna is going to be a violation. Something in the range of 1mW into an omni antenna would be more like it.

On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters).

source:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html
see also:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf

Bottom line:
The transmitter described is not even close to complying with FCC regs. FCC compliance depends not only on transmitter power, but also on antenna gain and several other factors. You cannot simply say "X milliwatts is safe". Not only that, but 100mW into almost any antenna is going to be a violation. Something in the range of 1mW into an omni antenna would be more like it.

link

For number 3.

It used to be. As a ham you SHOULD know this. The rules regarding unlicensed broadcast transmission in the FM band changed. You can, in fact, use any amount of power you want. That is, as long as you don't excced 250uv/meter measured at a range of three meters.

For most of the unlicensed stuff that translates to roughly 10 to 20 mw. This is governed by part 15 of the FCC code and you can read even more about it at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/lowpwr.html#PART.

The FCC is supposed to enforce the Telecom Act, and it is supposed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act in doing so. This means that major decisions have to be done in the open, with a public Comment period. Sure, they can try to ignore the Comments, but the Record they create helps on appeal. The Courts in general do not like this FCC, which tends to be viewed as a bunch of cowboys.

There are some urgent Dockets open now at the Wireline [prevention-of] Competition Bureau (WCB). Two, from BellSouth and Verizon, call for their DSL service (and ATM and Frame Relay, in VZ's case, and possibly T1 and T3 leased line in at least BellSouth's case) to be reclassified as "private", rather than "common carriage". This means that they will be under no obligaton whatsoever to allow competing ISPs, like Speakeasy and Earthlink, to use them! (Their excuse: Cable doesn't haveta so they doan wanna.) Since cable (never a common carrier by law) doesn't provide an alternative, most ISPs will be shut off from their customers and thus put out of business. (Dial-up might remain open, but they're working on it, believe me. I'm in the middle of it.) If they do deign to allow an independent ISP onto their wire, it won't be subject to protections against discrimination or "unreasonable" pricing, which are part of the legal definition of common carriage.

In other words, you'll get two ISPs to choose from, the cable company and the ILEC, and that's it, and they will NOT be required, as unregulated ISPs, to even allow you to connect to the sites you choose. Verizon Online has been blocking tons of legitemate mail lately, for instance, in a profoundly broken anti-spam move. (If it ain't coming from a US server, it's probably spam, they think.)

So if you want a choice of ISPs, COMMENT to the FCC. It's done on line using their Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Go to http://www.fcc.gov/ , then click (top of page) E-filing, then go to ECFS, then read some filed Comments, then add your own. A "brief comment" is easy, just type into the web form, or upload a Word/WP/PDF document. No lawyer necessary.

Docket numbers to plug in to ECFS:

04-405 : BellSouth petition to not be a common carrier. Still open for REPLY COMMENTS, not Comments. (A Reply Comment mentions an already-filed Comment, typically to rebut or add to it. But it's a pretty loose distinction.)

04-440 : Verizon's "me too" petition to not be a common carrier. Open to Comments.

04-416 : Qwest's Petition to be treated as a "non-dominant carrier" in DSL. This doesn't cut off ISPs entirely but treats them as a competitive carrier like Covad, with much looser rules about pricing, for instance. (As dominant providers, they can set their own price, but have to file more paperwork to change it, with more notice.) This docket closes to Comments TOMORROW, January 6, 2005 (a one day extension from the original date).

Will Team Slashdot come through?

• Homeland Security and the FBI get involved. We'll hear from the wiretapping people again.

• Power over Ethernet meets VoIP Phones stay up, until the UPS dies.
• Ringtones for VoIP phones Music for the office.

From the FCC:

The wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) rules seek to improve the effectiveness and reliability of wireless 911 service by providing 911 dispatchers with additional information on wireless 911 calls.

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.

Federal Law requires the telcos to provide dial tone and 911 service even if the customer is not a customer i.e. not paying. Any phone that has dial tone does have 911 access.

So turn off the telco and make use of that bandwidth.

-Telco Socialist Tax free since 2003-

• I am 99.999999% certain that when Minnesota sued for the right to "regulate" VoIP, they actually meant tax not "make sure VoIP providers played nice". They might tell people they want to do the latter, but if they had won, you'd be certain that your VoIP bills would have "mandatory regulatory fees" tacked on post haste.

Let me say that again. The tax that everyone paid into, which was supposed to go to support schools and community access to the Internet, has never been paid out.

More importantly, it's not a required tax at all. The telco will tell you that that are MANDATED to collect it, but that's pure bullshit.

From the horse's mouth:

• The FCC does not require companies to recover their contributions directly from their customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess customers to recover Universal Service costs.

  Although it is not mandatory that companies charge a Universal Service fee to help recover their contributions to the fund, most do.

Actually, the FCC is strongly on the side of the tenants, and competition. For example, in one can read: the FCC forbade telecommunications carriers in commercial settings from entering into exclusive contracts with building owners, including contracts that effectively restrict premises owners or their agents from permitting access to other telecommunications service providers. Bottom line, commercial landlords do not have the right to sign exclusive arrangements.

Here's what a greedy ISP CAN do: If an wire-based ISP has a sweetheart deal with an apartment building and they want to lock out WAPs, they can jam those frequencies. It's deregulated and AFAIK there's nothing that can stop them as long as they keep the power level down.

i am quite sure this is illegal. the fcc does not like when people mess around with licensed or unlicensed spectrum without their permission. check out this link: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/operatio ns/blockingjamming.html

A TiVo® box is intended for use only with a paid subscription to the TiVo® service. Without the TiVo service, a TiVo box has extremely limited functionality. No functionality is represented or should be expected.

Television stations serving all markets in the United States are airing digital television programming, although they still must provide analog programming until the target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV - December 31, 2006. That date may be extended, however, until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the current (analog) channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses.

Lackey? More like "Oreo".

FCC RF safety FAQ

IMO, one should be more concerned with mosquito bites, chemical mutagens, and if contemplating offspring, teratogens.

Grow GIANT tomatoes! OR Reefer!

they don't know who the terrorists are.
In order to find out that you aren't a terrorist,
they have to monitor your communications.

I'd rather they not assume that I'm a terrorist.

Does the word "terrorist" legally mean anything anyway?
It's probably yet another case of them using ambiguity to assume more power.

For example:
"Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

Is that legal??
Your Honor, my client pleads Not Guilty of all serious substantive evil.

-metric

I was unclear on what the bounds of the FCC's mandate actually are, so I did some checking. According to the FCC:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

The FCC has 16 bureaus and offices, including the Enforcement Bureau, which enforces the Communications Act. The Bureau sees its mission thusly: Through firm, fast, flexible and fair enforcement of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules, promote competition, protect consumers and foster efficient use of the spectrum while furthering public safety goals.

The FCC reports directly to Congress, and it seems Congress has given the FCC the responsibility of policing the airwaves on certain matters: t is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene, profane or indecent programming. The prohibition is set forth at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. 1464). Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. 1464. In doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license for the broadcast of obscene, profane or indecent material.

I'm not sure if this fits into the original mandate of the FCC, but since it was established as an agency that reports directly to Congress, and Congress gave it the power to watch out for indecency, it seems that the FCC is about more than spectrum management.