Slashdot Mirror

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).

I don't think much else needs to be said about VoIP. It's wonderful technology and saves a lot of money on telephone bills if you're well connected with broadband. I use VoIP quite a bit, so it's worth mentioning a top VoIP reference on the internet, in fact the most comprehensive info directory on the topic I know of. Also of interest is the FCC (keep the boos down please) webpage on it.

No, it does allow for apparment dwellers to install antennas, as well as things other than dishes (smaller than 1 meter for any of the above)

From the FCC Fact Sheet: Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.
and
Yes. Antennas designed to receive and/or transmit data services, including Internet access, are included in the rule

and amateur radio equipment as necessary.

Which part of the FCC rules specifically allow this? Not the one that allows for the placement of satellite TV dishes (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) for fixed wireless signals. The FCC Fact Sheet specifically states in one paragraph:

"Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.

Yes, I can put up a 2M whip in an exclusive use area (a back porch exclusively for my own use). But I couldn't get away with much for the >= 20M band.

Here we go kids...the answers you're looking for:

1) The apartments are operated by First Worthing, and are on the UTD campus. Only students may reside in the apartments, but UTD does not own nor operate them.

2) Nothing in lease regarding personal WAP's. In fact, this "policy" is less than a week old.

3) FCC has very clear rules regarding this, and says it specifically apples to Multi-Tennant Environments, which it says, specifically include Universities, and also applies to Landlords. It is very clear that the FCC alone has the authority to make the calls when it comes to radio interference, including wifi's. (Which it again, specifically names.) read it here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

So, the verdict? UTD is overstepping its legal bounds.
May I also suggest visiting the site the students there have to rant about their apartment complex: http://www.waterviewsux.com/

There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation.

As I suspected, the FCC begs to differ.

From the second paragraph, "We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC."

If Waterview wants to provide exclusive service over their apartments, they are welcome to do so in FCC restricted bandwidth in accordance with FCC law. But they cannot legally prohibit operation of 802.11x transmitters.

Not that I would expect this to bother you since in other posts you've shown that you really prefer not to respect the rights of your tenants.

landlords(sic) (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.

Did you mean to say, "landlords (like the university) routinely illegally restrict all kinds of behavior"? You may be able to bully your tenants (if they actually exist and all this isn't just juvenile internet bravado) into compliance, but that doesn't make you right.

Good for you, but I hope you're a pre-law major and can make a project out of it, because the university will likely discipline (e.g. suspend, expel, or boot from housing) first and read the regs only when forced to at lawyerpoint.

Here's the FCC's take on the subject:

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

Q: What are "fixed wireless signals"?

A: "Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.

Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas?

A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations.

> The FCC has ruled repeatedly with regards to HAM Radio antennas, DBS dishes and OTA TV antennas that landlords cannot unduly restrict tenants from installing them.
I'm sorry to inform you that this is incorrect. The FCC's OTARD fact sheet clearly states that protections do not extend to ham radio. It's quite a big deal if you happen to live in an area (such as an entire state) that is full of these restrictions that are ostensibly part of voluntary contracts.

Read more about antenna restrictions and join the fight -- the way the FCC is going these days, it may soon be easy for landlords to prohibit 802.11 devices in entire housing developments and "offer" you their own leased-line service for only nine ninety nine ninety nine ninety none...

And I quote the FCC: In addition, questions have arisen about the ability of homeowners associations, landlords, and other third parties to prohibit customer use of small antennas when consumers install and operate them as unlicensed devices.

In response, we reaffirm that, under the Communications Act, the FCC has exclusive authority to resolve matters involving radio frequency interference [RFI] when unlicensed devices are being used, regardless of venue. We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC.

And I quote the FCC: In addition, questions have arisen about the ability of homeowners associations, landlords, and other third parties to prohibit customer use of small antennas when consumers install and operate them as unlicensed devices.

In response, we reaffirm that, under the Communications Act, the FCC has exclusive authority to resolve matters involving radio frequency interference [RFI] when unlicensed devices are being used, regardless of venue. We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC.

And the FCC has told your parent's neighborhood association to go stick it.

There are simply some things in life you cannot contract away. Use of radio spectrum seems to be important enough to the FCC that they consider it one of those things.

In my parents neighborhood, you can't have a ham radio antenna or a satellite dish visible - these things are regulated by the FCC, yet the neighborhood association can limit their use

Actually, the neighborhood association can make those rules, but they can't enforce them. Your parents could put up a dish if they wanted to.

This is because this stuff is not only regulated by the FCC, but FCC regulations specifically preempt homeowners association rules and rental agreement provisions about the placement of dishes.

Actually, those rules ONLY apply to sattelite dishes, and exclude WAPs. Check the fcc website for the full article. The relevant portion is:

The following antennas or dishes are covered by these rules:

• a "dish" antenna one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter (or any size in Alaska) designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service or to receive and transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite;

• an antenna one meter in diameter or less designed to receive wireless cable or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than by satellite; and

• commercially-available analog and digital television antennas.

Antennas used for amateur ("Ham") radio, CB radio, FM or AM radio service, satellite radio or used as part of a hub to relay signals among antennas are NOT covered by these rules.

The rules prohibit homeowner associations, landlords, state and local governments, or any other third parties from placing restrictions that impair a customer antenna user's ability to install, maintain, or use such customer antennas transmitting and/or receiving commercial nonbroadcast communications signals when the antenna is located "on property within the exclusive use or control" of the user where the user has a "direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property, except under certain exceptions for safety and historic preservation.

What, like the rule that says that landlords can't stop tenants installing a satellite dish? (Yes, the physical object.)

There is no way that the university could get away with this if they were a normal landlord; the only possibility is if the student accommodation does not fall under normal tenancy law (as is the case in some jurisdictions).

That's not the case. The FCC has exclusive rights to resolve matters such as these under the Communications Act of 1934, including those regarding unlicensed devices such as wifi. FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices rules (OTARD) specifically prohibit landlords, state and local governments and third parties from placing restrictions upon users of these unlicensed devices.

USA amateur radio has a frequency allocation from 2390 MHz to 2450 MHz FCC Part 97.301a pdf

802.11 2.4GHz frequencies are:
Channel Frequency
1 2401-2423
2 2404-2428
3 2411-2433
4 2416-2438
5 2421-2443
6 2426-2448
7 2431-2453
8 2436-2458
9 2441-2463
10 2446-2468
11 2451-2473

So any 802.11b channel other than channel 11 overlaps licensed spectrum. The implications are:

1. any 802.11 user who causes interference to a licensed amateur radio operator must stop causing interference even if it means turning off the device

2. Licensed amateur radio operators could build some high power wireless networks for amateur radio use as long as they only use channels 1 thru 6 and follow the FCC regulations governing amateur radio.

I then called AT&T (who I had been with) and they were more than happy to take back my business plus take down details of the slam. I then sent a letter to my state's Attorney General's office describing the incident. I indicated to them the same thing I did to Sprint. I'd be happy to pay them if (1) they provided an itemized listing of the calls and (2) rebilled the calls at the 7-cent rate I had with AT&T prior to being slammed (the second condition is provided for by law). The AG's office sent back a letter saying they'd bring the matter to Sprint. Sprint then dropped all the charges.

Seeing that this is slashdot and there always seems to be someone willing to take the contrary position, I give an example, a sound card laying on my desk. FCC ID LWA521-T9.

These IDs can be checked at https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/ GenericSearch.cfm

Within the last month I had to use this to track down the manufacturer of a proximity detector connected to my wife's car alarm.

PS, to Jim: I re-read before posting. I want to be clear that I meant other poster, not yourself, might well contradict this in the absence of other proof.

I think you mean FAA, not FCC.

Seriously, shouldn't this thing have an FCC ID on it??

I don't see anything labelled as an FCC code, but every once in a while I've had some luck identifying equipment using the FCC's database.

Considering the fact that southern France was collaberating with the Nazis, I should think that they'd have not been that much more deprived than citizens of Germany during the war.

The average Parisian lost 20kg during the Nazi occupation. I could dig for something about southern France, but you get the idea.

Aside from that, you seem to be supportive of France's attempt at purging "bad thoughts" from the minds of everyone on planet Earth

No, I'm not.

I'm, to the contrary, opposed to jingoist who act as though this was somehow a French thing. First of all, right there, you claim they are trying to "purge" the thoughts of, as you said, everyone on the planet. Whereas we are talking about a law that only applies to, surprise surprise, France.

Your justification of your hatred of all things French is what I oppose.

My feelings about that perticular law or that perticular case are not involved, this is about you jerks attacking a whole country, a whole people and culture, and acting as though you were justified, as if this were right.

American courts and lawmakers will come to Yahoo's rescue and put the pompous French beaurocrats right back on their socialist asses.

Yes, they are pompous.
Its as though, you know, they want a company doing is business in their own country to obey the law of the land, and the company was responding by having the court of another country try to impose its own laws to a sovereign nation.
Because, of course, since America is better than the rest of the planet, it's laws take precedence over all other laws. That is not pompous, oh my no!

Otherwise, we may well see the content of the internet reduced to the lowest common denominator of PC-filtered non-offensive non-confrontational child-safe mind-numbing drool.

Because, of course, laws affecting content on the internet are only passed in inferior countries, the Almighty, divine United States of America are above, amongst other things, passing such laws.

So lets see, your opinion is that the French people did not suffer during WWII, that they are pompous, that they want to purge the thoughts of the entire world, and that they should submit to U.S. law.

My opinion is that you are a jingoist bigot.

From the article:

The Koreans looked at the death rates in 10 regions with AM radio-transmitting towers broadcasting at more than 100 kilowatts and compared them with control areas without transmitters.

50,000 watts is probably close to the legal limit for AM commercial stations in the US. I found Why AM Radio Stations Must Reduce Power, Change Operations, or Cease Operations at Night at the FCC (for US-interested readers.)

My father said that in the old days, the transmitter for a radio station in Texas was actually located over the US-Mexico border where the FCC power limitations did not apply. Dad said that he was able to receive this station with some regularity when he was growing up in Western Kentucky (which would have been in the late 1940s to late 1950s.)

Also, I remember Feynman talking about crystal sets, and saying that he could pick up WACO "in Waco Texas" as a child on a radio he puttered with as a child: that would have been in the late 1920's-1930's.

Any radio experts out there want to tell me if my Dad and Feynman were listening to the same station? And if so, what was its power?

I also remember from my amateur radio theory that the phenomena of atmo/tropo/iono/spheric layers changing as a result of the transition from day to night is slightly complicated by the numbers of layers (which represent different average states of ionization for particles at a particular altitude.) I believe the transition between one layer and the next represents an effective change in the refractive index (which is in turn related to the variable speed of light in a particular material.)

At any such boundary between average quantum energy states, there is an amplitude (possibility) for some of the energy of an incident wave to be reflected, and part of it to be transmitted (with the concomitant change in angle of transmission given by Snell's law.)

This reflection will take place at both the "inner" and "outer" surfaces of a particular layer. So in addition to the refractive bending of the earth's ionosphere, it is possible to have not just one-hop reflections off the "inner" surface of one layer, but extended "multi-hop" transmissions, where part of the wave makes it through the inner surface of the layer only to be bounced back by the outer surface of that layer, and then part of this once-transmitted, once-reflected energy leaks back down to the ground through the inner surface, while another fraction still is reflected back upwards from the inner surface for another shot at being reflected downwards...but at a much greater distance from the source. So at each pass, you lose energy, but you go this enormous distance.

So with layers appearing and disappearing all the time, I imagine experienced DX shortwave radio operators look at the ionization meterology data the way I as a web geek would look at an ever changing network status chart...

No. It was not activated. Check the 9/11 commission report. It isn't just for a nuclear attack by the soviets anymove. Check it out here.

the EAS digital signal is the same signal that the National Weather Service (NWS) uses on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Weather Radio (NWR).
-- www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/eas.html

NWR Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME)

Full spec (pdf)

• FCC: Hi Mr. Eisner! How can we help you today?

  Michael Eisner: Hi, I'd like to mandate Digital Rights Management on all hardware please.

  FCC: Ummm, this is the FCC... we do broadcasts. Not hardware and encoding standards. Perhaps you should speak to the manufacturers, or Congress?

  Michael Eisner: Awww, come ooon! You gotta help us, they won't listen to us anymore. They just keep going on and on about how Digital Rights Management is soooo completely not feasible. They won't listen to reason! And well, Congress.. there are a few there that will ah, *cough* listen *cough* to us. But those damned manufacturers keep brib... er, lobbying Congress to block our initiatives! Besides, if you can get me strong encryption hardware on every DVD player, there might be a little something in it for you, IF you know what I mean... *wink* *wink*

  FCC: Mandating that every DVD player bound for North Korea have hardware level support for strong cryptography? You're in the wrong place. You need to talk to the Bureau of Information and Security. But I can save you a trip. The answer is NO. Next.

I hate when people are WRONG and get modded to +5 Informative.

To quote the FCC: "Although the CSS copy protection system for DVDs has been 'hacked' and circumvention software is available on the Internet, DVDs remain a viable distribution platform for content owners. 46 The CSS content protection system serves as an adequate 'speed bump' for most consumers, allowing the continued flow of content to the DVD platform.

By the FFC's definition DVD storage media is a "Distribution platform"!

The FCC has decided that their power is no longer restricted to regulating broadcasters. The FCC has decided they have the power to regulate receivers and even storage media, and to make any hardware and devices ILLEGAL unless they enforce FCC mandated DRM systems.

Yes, this amounts to a back-door attempt to impose the Hollings bill, also known as SSSCA, also known as CBDTPA. Now known as the TV Broadcast Flag and potentially expanding into a Radio Flag and mandatory DRM systems for ALL audio and video devices.

Welcome to the United States of XXAAmerica.

-

From reading all the documents associated with the Tivo application, it looks like the FCC got annoyed with the MPAA asking for more and more each time it comes back. The broadcast flag ruling said it was to prevent only "indiscriminate mass internet redistribution."

The MPAA wanted Tivo rejected because it did not include controls to keep the content proximate to the home, preventing even discriminate internet redistribution. The FCC said "Wait a second...that's not what the broadcast flag is about. Shut up."

Hopefully the rumors about the non-replaceable battery are untrue.

The FCC link with some info (manual, pics, etc) is here... https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/ ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout =500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=219429&fcc_i d='P5J-ONISH'

There was a report issued in 2002 to determine whether the FCC had jurisdiction over webcasts (internet TV and the like) and whether or not their current TV regulations would apply. It's pretty interesting and their conclusions are somewhat alarming (especially if you oppose regulation on the internet), but it appears not much came of it. You can read the report here: DOC, PDF, or TXT.

There was a report issued in 2002 to determine whether the FCC had jurisdiction over webcasts (internet TV and the like) and whether or not their current TV regulations would apply. It's pretty interesting and their conclusions are somewhat alarming (especially if you oppose regulation on the internet), but it appears not much came of it. You can read the report here: DOC, PDF, or TXT.

There was a report issued in 2002 to determine whether the FCC had jurisdiction over webcasts (internet TV and the like) and whether or not their current TV regulations would apply. It's pretty interesting and their conclusions are somewhat alarming (especially if you oppose regulation on the internet), but it appears not much came of it. You can read the report here: DOC, PDF, or TXT.

Worst case scenario, in 20 years we won't have any personal computers, because this will outlaw them as well (any general purpose computer is a potential circumvention device and therefore must be prohibited - only DRM-shackled PCs will be legal, and I wouldn't call them "general purpose" if they only do what the RIAA/MPAA want them to do).

If you are as pissed off about this as Ted and I are, please write to Michael Powell (FCC chair) and your Congressional leaders and tell him how you feel.

Michael.Powell@fcc.gov

Write your representative

15.204 External radio frequency power amplifiers and antenna modifications (c) Only the antenna with which an intentional radiator is authorized may be used with the intentional radiator.

Now, it says:

15.204 External radio frequency power amplifiers and antenna modifications (c) An intentional radiator may be operated only with the antenna with which it is authorized. If an antenna is marketed with the intentional radiator, it shall be of a type which is authorized with the intentional radiator. An intentional radiator may be authorized with multiple antenna types.
(1) The antenna type, as used in this paragraph, refers to antennas that have similar in-band and out-of-band radiation patterns.
(2) Compliance testing shall be performed using the highest gain antenna for each type of antenna to be certified with the intentional radiator. During this testing, the intentional radiator shall be operated at its maximum available output power level.
(3) Manufacturers shall supply a list of acceptable antenna types with the application for equipment authorization of the intentional radiator.
(4) Any antenna that is of the same type and of equal or less directional gain as an antenna that is authorized with the intentional radiator may be marketed with, and used with, that intentional radiator. No retesting of this system configuration is required. The marketing or use of a system configuration that employs an antenna of a different type, or that operates at a higher gain, than the antenna authorized with the intentional radiator is not permitted unless the procedures specified in Section 2.1043 of this chapter are followed.

That is correct. It is illegal for anyone - even apartment complex owners - to deny you the right to have a dish. They CAN deny:

1. Putting it in common areas (hallways, shared porch, etc)

2. Drilling into or otherwise damaging their property.

However, if you have a window, "private" porch only accessible from your apartment, or if you have a ground floor apartment with a concrete pad or other "private" area, you can place a dish there and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

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

Also, they aren't allowed to charge you any fees or deposits for using your dish.

You can get TiVO, even if you're in a north-facing apartment. You may have to wheedle your landlord to permit the antenna's installation in a non-exclusive area (such as the rooftop), but there's only one way to find out, and ask.

If you have exclusive control over useable space (such as a balcony), you have the right to install an antenna. The FCC explains this on a page http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.htmlthat is relatively straightforward for a government document.

But you're right about one thing -- the NFL is greedy and short-sighted. Not that this is news. Take it from me - I should be a Lions fan, but the team moved to Pontiac in my formative years. The new stadium was far enough north that the games were always blacked out in Flint, Thanksgiving being the exception that proves the rule. So, I started cheering for Oakland. Then I moved to the Bay Area, where the only time I will ever see an Raiders home game is on a Monday night, when Channel 7 has to buy up about 5,000-10,000 tickets at the last minute to be able to show the game. D'oh...

"As of March 2001, there were 10,983 commercial radio stations in the United States"

according to the FCC

Clear Channel currently owns 1,182 radio stations. Not exactly "everything" now is it?

Oh yeah... you might want to consider looking other places for music. Believe it or not there is a HUGE independent music market that caters to just about every taste imaginable.

"50 years ago" is a reference to the approximate beginning of general TV broadcasting.

Again -- the "Breen code" in Hollywood was around for a long time, it just wasn't enforced. The situations are pretty comparable.

They aren't even remotely comparable and you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about. The "Breen code," as you call it, was something the MPAA created to self-police the movie industry. The Production Code (it's real name) was created in 1930 as a voluntary standard for the member production companies. It went through various changes until it was replaced in 1968 by the MPAA film rating system. It wasn't administered by anyone in government, it was not mandatory (films were released without compliance--they just didn't get an MPAA seal-of-approval), and it had nothing to do with politics. Far from it, it had more to do with marketing to a concerned audience. Take a look at the Wikipedia article.

Blinding yourself to the fact that the FCC's action against Howard Stern was politically motivated

You still have provided no proof. Only wild-eyed assumption. You do realize that Stern is now heard in more markets than he was before, right? You also realize, I'm sure, that the FCC only takes action in compliance with FEDERAL LAW after receiving, vetting, and investigating complaints from listeners. In Stern's case, this meant fining Clear Channel. Clear Channel then dropped him from 6 of the MANY stations on which his program was broadcast. As you know, he picked up 6 replacements, plus 3 more stations.

because the attempt was inept, to hear you argue it

I argue no such thing. I argue that if the FCC were pursuing a policy of censoring political opponents, Howard Stern would not be on the air at all, and that others who say FAR worse things would be removed from the airwaves as well. Consider the case of Al Franken, for example. Then there is Pacifica radio. Don't forget NPR. NPR news programs make critical statements of the administration all the time. And they have far more impact and credibility than Howard Stern. If this were a politically motivated hit job, All Things Considered would be gone long before Howard Stern.

To bring you back on-topic, however, I still contend that making critical comments about the Administration, then saying that no one is allowed to disagree with the Administration, is a silly position to take. That's what started this thread.

No, I'm referring more to the fact your phone now sits on a network, and in theory is able to be hacked.

And how does this differ from the cell network? Or, are saying that it is impossible to hack?

The Department of Habitual Stupidity's (DHS's) recommendation of Security through Obscurity is absurd. It only serves to protect cellular providers from having their level of incompetence revealed to the customers, potential customers, and shareholders. This secrecy will compromise national security by allowing companies to continue to do sloppy engineering and maintenence of important communications infrastructure. Instead, all of the reports should be made VERY public, including searches on the FCC site listing the total minutes of downtime and number of affected customers by company within an area. This will allow stockholders and customers to favor more robust systems. As for the vulnerable parts of the system that might be of interest to terrorists, they are rather hard to keep secret as they tower 200 feet above the landscape: the main towers that the smaller cells uplink to.

• Link to FCC news release .
• Outage report page.
• Public Comments Page. However, since there is no notice of proposed rule making or notice of inquiry, you apparently can't actually submit a comment.

The Department of Habitual Stupidity's (DHS's) recommendation of Security through Obscurity is absurd. It only serves to protect cellular providers from having their level of incompetence revealed to the customers, potential customers, and shareholders. This secrecy will compromise national security by allowing companies to continue to do sloppy engineering and maintenence of important communications infrastructure. Instead, all of the reports should be made VERY public, including searches on the FCC site listing the total minutes of downtime and number of affected customers by company within an area. This will allow stockholders and customers to favor more robust systems. As for the vulnerable parts of the system that might be of interest to terrorists, they are rather hard to keep secret as they tower 200 feet above the landscape: the main towers that the smaller cells uplink to.

• Link to FCC news release .
• Outage report page.
• Public Comments Page. However, since there is no notice of proposed rule making or notice of inquiry, you apparently can't actually submit a comment.

The Department of Habitual Stupidity's (DHS's) recommendation of Security through Obscurity is absurd. It only serves to protect cellular providers from having their level of incompetence revealed to the customers, potential customers, and shareholders. This secrecy will compromise national security by allowing companies to continue to do sloppy engineering and maintenence of important communications infrastructure. Instead, all of the reports should be made VERY public, including searches on the FCC site listing the total minutes of downtime and number of affected customers by company within an area. This will allow stockholders and customers to favor more robust systems. As for the vulnerable parts of the system that might be of interest to terrorists, they are rather hard to keep secret as they tower 200 feet above the landscape: the main towers that the smaller cells uplink to.

• Link to FCC news release .
• Outage report page.
• Public Comments Page. However, since there is no notice of proposed rule making or notice of inquiry, you apparently can't actually submit a comment.

Isn't that what the V chip is supposed to do?

Not that I agree with the concept of the V chip -- as a parent, I expect responsible behaviour from my children. I also feel that sheltering them from words, images, etc. that they will have to deal with later in life is probably not a good idea. As has been mentioned, there are other sources of information and blocking access only makes the material seem more desirable.

'It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs.'

Emphasis mine.

If it were only as Mr. Dreyfuss states, then fix would be easy and attendent politically inflammatory overtone would be fully warrented, but unfortunatly not the case.

Let me explain in a non-partisan statement of frustration from an FCC broadcast license holder (and if you call me a DJ, I'll subject Seattle drive time to the lost treasures of radio - Boy Band phone interviews circa 2001 and a capella in-studio "performances" for a week straight, something arguably a crime in and of itself, but I digress):

From the FCC website,

The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

• FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell (R) (Clinton, 1997;again, as Chair, Bush, 2001)
• Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy (unspecified) (Bush, 2001)
• Commissioner Michael J. Copps (D) (Bush, 2001)
• Commissioner Kevin J. Martin (R?) (Bush, 2001)
• Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein (D?)
• (Bush, 2002)

These 5 Commissioners are charged with protecting the public's interest of the public airways and regulating conflicts between competing uses and interests - it is unspecified with respect to what exactly any of those things may be.

The next opportunity for appointments comes June 30, 2006, and the Commissioners are not subject to oversight - they, in their unspecified but sweeping jurisidiction are the oversight. This common unspecified theme is the bane of all broadcasters, big and small.

If you've read this far, you undoubtedly have indentified the problem, a marked absence traditional checks and balances-style controls - so while political pressures are undoubtedly present, a given President does not have the legal authority to remove an FCC Commissioner or direct the FCC's actions.

So, yes, it is censorship - but forget the partisan BS for the moment, this is a larger issue:

5 more or less untouchable Commissioners able to decide what all Americans can or cannot air... not matter how well-intended, if this sounds like a raw deal to you (the public they are protecting), then write your Congressional Representative and let them know.

Michael.Powell@fcc.gov

Hey, at least you'll make some wanker at the FCC waste their time deleting email, rather than finding more stuff to censor.

Personally, I told him I know of another group that gets pissed off when a woman shows too much skin. They are called the Taliban.

If you are concerned about the erosion of your liberties, please do something, no matter how small. Write or call your local reps, and Michael Powell:

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_email. html

If you have communicated, thank you. If you have not, and are bitching, then bitch to the right people. Then come back to Slashdot and bitch guilt-free.

If you think this censorship stuff is all OK, I am sorry for you. I am sorry you have chosen fear over freedom. If you think this is all about the quality of a show, or the popularity of PBS, I am also sorry for you. I am sorry you don't grasp what's really happening here. I am sorry you'd like to wait until it's too late to do something about it. Unfortunately your apathy will mean MY loss of freedom, so please don't feel bad when, someday, I don't feel bad about calling the local authorities on you for unpatriotic speech. We cool? Great!

His "blog" is pretty interesting but right now talks more about digital TV than anything pertinent to the internet. Still a nice outreach, we'll see how often it gets updated...
In related FCC news, they just passed an order lessening the restrictions on the unlicensed 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz frequency bands.
The news release (pdf) says that this order removes roadblocks keeping deployment of next generation (longer range) Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices.
There is also a statement from Chairman Powell himself (more pdf)

-Cary
Fairfax Underground : Where Fairfax County comes out to play