Slashdot Mirror

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.

Agreed. I will be writing to the FCC.
FCC Contact Page

Complain to the FCC

You may file a written complaint and mail it to:

FCC
Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554

or

You can file at fccinfo@fcc.gov

or

Toll Free:
1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice
1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) tty

Or see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html for more information.

It looks like they are only interested in hearing complaints of Indecency/Obscenity. What can we complain about that they won't ignore?

Most sets or set-top boxes, Tivos, etc. have parental control built right in, often using a V-Chip. If you only want children's programming to work when you aren't there, just set it to limit that type of programming for them, then when they're in bed you unlock it for yourself. Still means things need to be rated properly (and news of all things, one of the worst things you can show children is often rated G) but it is better than sticking all of us with TreehouseTV.

There is one other problem, commercials aren't V-Chip rated yet and while you'd think they'd make the commercials match the show, often there are innappropriate commercials around educational shows. Surprisingly, Discovery channel is one of the worst culprits, at least Discovery Canada does. With simulcasting I'm not sure about the original signal.

Universal service fee.

911 is state of locally funded. The cell phone 911 problem is mainly a result of people not knowing where thay are. Net thing you know, there will be a lobby group to requre funding for 911 cell phones for dogs and cats. Hell, they can't tell us where they are either but there is some remote possibility that you might wreck your car or fall off a mountain and your dog or cat could push the panic button for you.

There needs to be some sort of cost benefit analysis applied to this stuff. IMO, it's WRONG to 'tax' (fee) everyone in order to deal with people who are too stupid to know where they are. As for those situation where you may be able to push the panic button but not talk, there are commercial services available for those who desire this much coddling.

VOIP over 2.5G or 3G phones will not steal monies from this 'tax' structure. The fee is a pass through from your phone company. They will still have to pay it and they will, generally, continue to pass it through. Interestingly, the only phone company owner I know says that there is no real accounting of these fees, even though the companies are required to pass through no more than they charge.

I know that universaL access is charged on my IDSL line so no loss there if I go VOIP. Is it also charged to cable TV companies? If so, then VOIP is a red herring for more 'tax'.

Hands off, you greedy bastards.
You're not going to tax me and use it to fund your wars and invasions and occupations that all your blood thirsty chicken hawks are hell bent on starting and waging.

This is nothing less than taxation without representation.

Just remember, the American Revolution was started over taxation without representation and they weren't anywhere near as burdened as we are now.

Hell, we would have been better off to let the Britts keep America because the current system is bleeding the people to death to fund the bleeding to death of OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!!

Oh yeah, what about all the THEFT that goes on through the phone company? Eh??

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

The FCC is claiming the right to regulate "all interstate radio and wire communication," not only wireless. (read the fine PDF cited above)

CB doesn't require a license anymore; you just have to use certified gear and there are rules which someone can complain to the FCC if you break.

I think the risk of the FCC regulating PC and ATSC tuner card makers and ISPs is worse than requiring internet licenses for individuals. I think they got out of CB licensing because it was too much of a pain in the ass & didn't generate enough revenue (I remember $5 licenses ca. 1975). There was no ARRL to handle the paperwork.

Worst case scenario: ISPs are required to install "smart filter/search" Echelon-like systems that watch for "pirated" content and snuff it while also giving a "kill switch" instant DMCA-takedown mechanism for MPAA-paid mercenaries to use.

My opinion is that they should open up some small subset of the UHF and VHF bands to general purpose traffic. It would still require a license to use the equipment, but with content rules similar to the ISM band (whatever kind of traffic you want, as long as it's not interfering with someone else). This would allow people to use HAM radio as part of the infrastructure of the Internet.

In fact the release specifically states:

The Commission's order does not express an opinion about the applicability to Vonage of general laws in Minnesota governing taxation, fraud, commercial dealings, marketing, advertising and other business practices. But the Commission expects states to continue playing a vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, responding to complaints, and enforcing fair business practices.

So I'm not sure where people get the idea that the FCC preemption order affects state taxation, the news release about the order clearly states that it does not.

Also available in other formats from the FCC's Dail Digest

Text of the news releast.
Word file of the news releast.

Text of Mr. Powell's statement.
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement.

For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here.

Also available in other formats from the FCC's Dail Digest

Text of the news releast.
Word file of the news releast.

Text of Mr. Powell's statement.
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement.

For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here.

Also available in other formats from the FCC's Dail Digest

Text of the news releast.
Word file of the news releast.

Text of Mr. Powell's statement.
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement.

For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here.

Also available in other formats from the FCC's Dail Digest

Text of the news releast.
Word file of the news releast.

Text of Mr. Powell's statement.
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement.

For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here.

Also available in other formats from the FCC's Dail Digest

Text of the news releast.
Word file of the news releast.

Text of Mr. Powell's statement.
Word Document of Mr. Powell's statement.

For future reference, the FCC maintains a daily digest of their releases here.

FCC News Release (PDF, 110K)

Michael Powell's Statements (PDF, 75.6K)

FCC News Release (PDF, 110K)

Michael Powell's Statements (PDF, 75.6K)

The madwifi FAQ - they state the reason for the binary only HAL.

The specific regulation is here

Basically, the problem is that if you were able to tweak the settings of your transmitter chip, you could do things the device wasn't manufactured for, some of which may cause interference and whatnot. This is perfectly fine - if you have a license from the FCC for such things, but if you don't, you're SOL. Thus, by making the firmware binary only, it's difficult enough to tweak those parameters that it counts as a manufactured device, just like a toy walkie talkie does, and the manufacturer bears the responsibility for the device. This way you don't have to pay a ton of money for an FCC license just to talk to your access point.

As you should know the FCC considers the spectrum used by 802.11 devices as UNLICENSED. I'm glad that 802.11 has some requirements so that vendors who make devices to that spec can interoperate, but that's a whole different ballgame. If I have my 802.11a/b/g card running and get stomped on because of a cordless phone, or a microwave, the FCC doesn't care - it's unlicensed. Moreover, they like this, and look to promote it: "While our rules have been successful in encouraging innovation, we need to review them to eliminate unnecessary impediments to new technology." (that's a quote from this FCC presentation: FCCpowerpoint). In other words, if there are any other boundaries people are coming across in the unlicensed spectrum, they want to remove any regulations so that more innovation can occur.

As a counter point of where the FCC does incur its wrath, one need not look far (though this is diverging from the discussion about vendors licensing firmware binaries, you seem really confused, so I'll make this excruciatingly pablumized). Licensed spectrum is a whole different ball of wax, the FCC went and raided a local pirate radio station in Santa Cruz with a bunch of federal agents not too long ago, who were operating a LPFM station (37W for what it's worth, paltry compared to my 300W microwave oven, or even lightbulb usage). RAIDED. Armed, dragging hippies out of bed at GUNPOINT because they were running an FM radio station. Guess what is never going to happen in the unlicensed spectrum (802.11 space) because some hippie is using it? Ok, I'll let you answer that yourself, but while Atheros, TI, Intel, whomever might have a hissy fit, it won't be the FCC. I can understand why people in IEEE 802.11, and the chipset vendors might want things closed up so that people don't go making non-compliant devices, or firing 802.11 framing over different wavelengths. That would make things like spendy frequency convertors harder to sell, and if you had a bunch of easily made 802.11 jammers written in software, just think of the pain in the ass that would be (e.g. Mike Shiffman's unreleased, but demo'd at core02 "omerta" tool developed with libradiate. Oh, btw - Mike didn't need any funky firmware hacking to write omerta, it turns out there are many easier ways to break 802.11 without resorting to mucking with individual vendor hardware implementations, who would have thought? Oh, real security experts two years ago.

You need to stop deceiving yourself or maybe you need to stop believing other supposed experts' lies. There's no SDR, firmware binary, or driver HAL binary that could be tweaked to a level of hardware that the FCC might really be concerned about when it comes to unlicensed spectrum.

This smart AC also explains things well, and doesn't seem confused about differences between FCC regulations and IEEE committee protocol requirements or vendor agendas as you do. Perhaps you need to get out more.

Hmm interesting. If it gets really bad (which it seems to be at points) you can always do 1 of 2 (or both I guess) things: 1. Call your local public utility comission - It's usually located on your states website, there you can file a complaint against Verizon, and make them track that call for you. I guess due to the frequency and time of the calls, it could be considered harassing. 2. File a complaint with the FCC right here In my dealings with the PUC (at least in NJ), they seem to get stuff done.

My understanding, based solely on reading the forums at dslreports.com is that Verizon wants monopoly rights to the fibre they are laying. As in no second source ISP like Covad or Earthlink would be able to lease bandwidth or connectivity on the fibre lines at (low) state-set rates, like they are able to today on the copper lines.

Ummm... the rules about whether or not a local exchange carrier has to "unbundle" network elements -- i.e. resell them to competitors -- are set by the Federal Communications Commission, not by state public utility commissions or state legislatures.

The FCC ruled on Oct. 22 that fiber to the home (FTTH) and fiber to the curb (FTTC) were exempt from the unbundling requirements.

Verizon had previously announced plans to have FTTH available to 1 million subscribers by 12/31/2004, and to an additional 2 million by 12/31/2005. The day before the FCC's action, they announced availability of FTTH in parts of 6 northeast and mid-Atlantic states -- see the end of the announcement for the list of counties where it will be available.

yeah, but the funny thing about your 'facts' is that you are still wrong...

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.

he was nominated and put into a seat on the commision, NOT head of the commision by clinton. bush put him into the head of the commision by appointing him chairman.

what clinton did was essentially put him on the board, bush made him chairman of the board. is there a difference? hell yes.

oh and btw, here's my link that backs up the facts.

Well, I for one looked at the FCC's Web site at:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/

As referenced in her post, and it says:

The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party.

If the FCC's Web site isn't a legitimate source for information regarding the FCC, what is?

excerpted from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/sponsid.html
Section 507 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 508 requires that when anyone pays someone to include program matter in a broadcast, the fact of payment must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast to the station over which the mater is to be carried. Both the person making the payment and the recipient are obligated to disclose the payment so that the station may make the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Act. Failure to disclose such payments is commonly referred to as ``payola'' and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice.

Except for the fact that it's Illegal, I agree with ya. ;)

FCC Enforcement Bureau Field Activity and Actions

Getting locked up you have to be a persistant wanker. The FCC would rather take lots of your money before they lock you up but they will lock you up.

FCC Enforcement Bureau Field Activity and Actions

Getting locked up you have to be a persistant wanker. The FCC would rather take lots of your money before they lock you up but they will lock you up.

It is in the gap between the video carrier (121.25) and aural carrier (125.75) of Standard and IRC cable systems' channel 14, broadcast channel 14 is at 471.25 (visual) and 475.75 (aural) this should not cause much interference, especially as Cable Television is run on Shielded Coaxial Cable.
Also, television systems operating within the aircraft bands must comply with FCC Rules and Regulations 76.611 -- signal leakage criteria.

NPR has manipulated laws and its public "competition" to the point where it has a near-monopoly on non-profit radio in the United States. For example, they have consistently sided with commercial broadcasters against allowing low-power (and thus low-cost) FM radio stations. Some college radio stations were driven off the air when NPR successfully lobbied the FCC to kill their licenses soon after it was formed.

Keep in mind that NPR is a medium-sized corporation: it pays salaries to quite a few people, owns infrastructure and facilities, etc. It has about the same set of concerns as any (privately-held) broadcasting corporation, including increasing market share and revenue.

In addition, as you observe, NPR is funded directly by the same large corporations that fund the Democratic and Republican parties. While I'm skeptical that there's explicit tying of donations to content, I'm sure that NPR is careful to keep its overall format fundable.

(1) ... The Kerry campaign trying to stop the broadcast through legal and procedural actions. How does this enhance free speech?

Interesting issue. Are there any limits on the freedom of a broadcaster? Just ask Howard Stern!

A TV station or a radio station uses a public resource, the RF spectrum, essentially for free. That's a big government subsidy (think how much cell phone providers pay for a few MHz of spectrum.). Not only that, but the FCC polices the spectrum -- if I try to set up a 50KW RF amp and broadcast in any Sinclair licensed frequency/area, the FCC will come down on me like a ton of bricks, shut me down and throw me in jail.

In return for exclusive use of protected spectrum, broadcasters agree to certain conditions. For a long time they had no choice, but now there's cable, and satellite, neither of which has exclusive use of a public resource, and on those media broadcasters are much more free to define content (Howard Stern will be moving to satellite radio, and I've heard that Michael Moore is trying to present a cable pay per view event before Nov 2).

What are the FCC conditions? Here's the FCC's brief description. In particular there's the FCC Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time rule. I think a fair application of equal time might be to broadcast the anti- Kerry movie one night, and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 in the same timeslot the next night. Somehow I doubt Sinclair Broadcasting is devoted enough to free speech to do that.

Actually, your free speech question may be a red herring here. Sinclair doesn't have a great track record on free speech. Last May, Sinclair censored Ted Koppel's Nightline broadcast of the names of our Iraq war dead. Check out this story quoting John McCain:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sent a letter to the president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, David Smith, about the broadcaster's decision to pre-empt Friday night's broadcast of "Nightline.

"I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq," McCain wrote.

"I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision," McCain continued.

"But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat," he wrote.

. . .

"It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves," he concluded.

My conclusion: these Sinclair folks are hardly paragons of free speech.

(2) I would suggest you see the broadcast before protesting. Maybe it isn't what you think it is -- who knows?

Great idea! Will you babysit my kids while I'm doing that? I'm willing to let the marketplace decide this issue too. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a for-profit venture that has earned somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000,000. I'd say th

From the FCC website:
"The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities." The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country. In March 1972, new rules regarding cable television became effective. These rules required cable television operators to obtain a certificate of compliance from the Commission prior to operating a cable television system or adding a television broadcast signal. The rules applicable to cable operators fell into several broad subject areas -- franchise standards, signal carriage, network program nonduplication and syndicated program exclusivity, nonbroadcast or cablecasting services, cross-ownership, equal employment opportunity, and technical standards. Cable television operators who originated programming were subject to equal time, Fairness Doctrine, sponsorship identification and other provisions similar to rules applicable to broadcasters. Cable operators were also required to maintain certain records and to file annual reports with the Commission concerning general statistics, employment and finances."

The relevant documentation can be found here

And I think you do need a license to operate a CB radio.

No you don't.

Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service is a private two-way voice communication service for use in personal and business activities of the general public. Its communications range is from one to five miles.

Licensing
License documents are neither needed nor issued and there are no age or citizenship requirements. As long as you use only an unmodified FCC certificated CB unit, you are provided authority to operate a CB unit in places where the FCC regulates radio communications.

The FCC is clearly out of it's mandate here and I would say the odds of defeating it are good, not on the merits of violation of consumers rights, but that the FCC doesn't have the authority for Congress to do this.

Think again. From their about us page they say, "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress.">

Parallel that with the CIA, "The CIA is an independent agency, responsible to the President through the DCI, and accountable to the American people through the intelligence oversight committees of the U.S. Congress."

I'm growing skeptical of these "independant agencies". They are not elected, they are not part of the "checks and balances" system, there is no meantion of them in the Constitution, yet they appear to be having greater power than any real part of our government.

I mean the CIA still has publically downloadable 23page document from 2002 about "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" here, yet its pretty much common knowledge that they never existed. The document even has a map on page 9 that has 9, yes, 9 "Declared nuclear facilities".

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. Set top boxes that allow consumers to use V-Chip technology on their existing sets are now available.

According to this FCC fact sheet, you cannot be prevented from installing a 1 meter or smaller dish antenna for receiving television programming if it is installed on a portion of the apartment (or condo or co-op) that you have exclusive control over. In general, this means you can install it on a balcony if it doesn't hang over the edge. Window ledges and exterior walls are not under "exclusive control" and you do not have a right to install there. Where was your antenna situated?

An HOA cannot restrict its residents from putting up an antenna. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

could not have a visible antenna of any kind

I believe FCC regulations forbid such restrictions.

Check out the FCC test report. According to the document, it looks like max RF output of the unit is 1.45mW -- not very much power!
Coral P2P link to FCC report
or
Direct FCC link to report

More info on Coral distribution network

The area over which a radio transmission causes interference is far larger than the area over which it provides useful service. For example, according to the FCC, WSM-FM in Nashville provides service over a radius of 79km around their tower. WSM-FM would interfere with another station on the same frequency within 182km of the tower.

It's far worse on AM. Authorizing a station on 1210AM in Michigan to operate at high power at night [0] would not only interfere with the Philadelphia station in Michigan - it would also cause interference in Pennsylvania.

[0] Actually, there's already a station operating on 1210 in Michigan. However, this station is not allowed to operate at night, when it could interfere with the Philadelphia outlet.

The area over which a radio transmission causes interference is far larger than the area over which it provides useful service. For example, according to the FCC, WSM-FM in Nashville provides service over a radius of 79km around their tower. WSM-FM would interfere with another station on the same frequency within 182km of the tower.

It's far worse on AM. Authorizing a station on 1210AM in Michigan to operate at high power at night [0] would not only interfere with the Philadelphia station in Michigan - it would also cause interference in Pennsylvania.

[0] Actually, there's already a station operating on 1210 in Michigan. However, this station is not allowed to operate at night, when it could interfere with the Philadelphia outlet.

Not sure how this works in .us, but over here .au the deal is that if you remain connected to the same exchange then you can keep the same number, regardless of who you pay the bills to. But move up the street into the next exchange's zone, and you're up for a new number...

In .us, there are recent geographic portability rules that allow you to keep the same number across providers (wireless or wired) in the same geographic area. Move to another geographic area and you're out of luck.

(4) Cable operators shall:

(i) Effective April 1, 2004, upon request of a customer, replace any leased high definition set-top box, which does not include a functional IEEE 1394 interface, with one that includes a functional IEEE 1394 interface or upgrade the customer's set-top box by download or other means to ensure that the IEEE 1394 interface is functional.

(ii) Effective July 1, 2005, include both a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes acquired by a cable operator for distribution to customers.

The actual "law" is Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but the above FCC rule action 03-225 is the actual practical interpretation of that section.

(4) Cable operators shall:

(i) Effective April 1, 2004, upon request of a customer, replace any leased high definition set-top box, which does not include a functional IEEE 1394 interface, with one that includes a functional IEEE 1394 interface or upgrade the customer's set-top box by download or other means to ensure that the IEEE 1394 interface is functional.

(ii) Effective July 1, 2005, include both a DVI or HDMI interface and an IEEE 1394 interface on all high definition set-top boxes acquired by a cable operator for distribution to customers.

The actual "law" is Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, but the above FCC rule action 03-225 is the actual practical interpretation of that section.

http://www.1394ta.org/About/products/consumer_prod ucts.html

Additionally, the FCC is mandating that as of July 1, 2005, all digital cable set top boxes MUST include a functional FireWire port, and as of April 1, 2004, must provide a set top box with a working FireWire port on customer request. Of course, this doesn't help if content providers choose to encrypt the content.

Here's hoping we can fight the Broadcast Flag. Unfortunately, I can see a future where our kids think that the only way they can watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it, and on the device they wish to watch it on, is by illegally downloading it from a P2P network, instead of being able to legally record it and move it around THEMSELVES with equipment THEY BOUGHT from a service THEY PAY FOR in their OWN HOMES.

She then proceeded to ask me if Cablevision explained to me about not getting "911" or "0" service....

I suppose the landline providers fight providing 911 service on disconnected phones, since not having it will scare some people from disconnecting their landline.

As for "0" service, looking up a phone number is easy with Google or online phone directories. As for phone calls, who uses the operator to place a call today? Especially at $99.99 per minute (operator assisted rate (slightly) exaggerated).