Slashdot Mirror

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

The issue here is simple: if the current allocation of frequencies is cutting into emergency services, then that needs to be fixed.

The FCC was debating letting Nextel reorganize the 800MHz band in return for their slice. This no doubt pissed off all their competitors who had to pay millions for their GHz freqs.

Usefull links:
Slashdot: FCC to Reorganize 800 band.
FCC Options and Alternatives for 800 band

However, they demand that we purchase a renters insurance policy that would cover, in effect, the entire building, should something go wrong (a lightning strike, for example). The requirement stated some rediculous multi $100k dollar amount.

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?

A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

First off, your landlord can specify exactly what they're allowed and not allowed to do when they sign a waiver.

Second, if you approach your landlord in a way that makes it sound like they're getting a deal out of it, they may just say yes. Try pitching it to them like, "I want to upgrade your apartment, free of charge, to be satellite ready!"

Write to them! Tell them you're against this!

The burden of proof should lie with the accuser (even though, let's not forget, we're actually discussing an administrative procedure, rather than a criminal prosecution). That means that they should be able to present evidence in support of their case. That's really a separate issue from "who has to maintain the historical record". I think that it's perfectly appropriate that the braodcasters should bear that responsibility.

If the historical record contains evidence which supports the accuser's case, I think that they should be able to call upon it (similar, I suppose, to subpoenaing it). The broadcasters aren't being forced to incriminate themselves: the tape might be incriminating evidence, but that's a different thing.

It's also worth noting that in most cases there seems to be little or no dispute about what was broadcast (I'm basing this on a cursory study of the FCC's website, and particularly this pdf, and a marginally more detailed look at its UK equivalent's website). The dispute is much more often about whether what was broadcast was or was not indecent or offensive in context.

The burden of proof should lie with the accuser (even though, let's not forget, we're actually discussing an administrative procedure, rather than a criminal prosecution). That means that they should be able to present evidence in support of their case. That's really a separate issue from "who has to maintain the historical record". I think that it's perfectly appropriate that the braodcasters should bear that responsibility.

If the historical record contains evidence which supports the accuser's case, I think that they should be able to call upon it (similar, I suppose, to subpoenaing it). The broadcasters aren't being forced to incriminate themselves: the tape might be incriminating evidence, but that's a different thing.

It's also worth noting that in most cases there seems to be little or no dispute about what was broadcast (I'm basing this on a cursory study of the FCC's website, and particularly this pdf, and a marginally more detailed look at its UK equivalent's website). The dispute is much more often about whether what was broadcast was or was not indecent or offensive in context.

If you're in the United States, your landlord is violating FCC regulations. Scroll to about the middle of the page.

common areas

rooftops

outside walls

window sills

so, unless permission is granted from landlord or homeowners associations you can't install there. the nice people at dish network have a landlord permission form and a diagram of exclusive areas.

The regulation he was referring to is 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000 and essentially prohibits restrictions of antennae placement to receive TV broadcasts.

However, the management of the institution would have been well within their rights to deny the resident the privilege of mounting an antenna on the roof, as the roof does not belong to the resident.

The FCC has a very helpful Fact Sheet regarding the issue. For those too lazy to click, renters can install an antenna on the private area of their residence (indoors or on a private balcony or porch) but public areas (shared walkways, balconies, and roofs) do not fall under the scope of this legislation. As such, management may impose restrictions on the mounting of such permanent structures as television dishes.

I would highly recommend any renters read the link above. Many apartment complex owners are not aware of the legislation (or even worse, are acutely aware of it!) and will attempt to bully you into submission by flatly prohibiting any sort of dish installation. The FCC order is rather strong ammunition in such cases.

There are a few related tables available for download, but I mostly use it for Name/Address test data.

Dean

> It's too bad that C-band is heavily regulated against by housing associations and zoning boards.

They say you can't have it, but they are wrong. According to the FCC, no law or rule against placing a dish on your own property can be written. Yes, that's right. You can have a satellite dish and tell the homeowners to fuck themselves. Federal law beats neighoborhood law :)

Link: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/consumerdish. html

TV-Filtering already exist. It's called V-Chip technology.

but your landlord can just put the "must use the landlord's wireless network" clause in your lease. You sign away many, many rights when you sign a lease already, this would just be one more.

"We also affirm that ... under the FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices ... rules apply ... to customer antennas - one meter or less in size - used for transmitting and/or receiving any fixed wireless signal of any commercial nonbroadcast communications signal that is transmitted via wireless technology to or from a customer location. 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." - Commission Staff Clarifies FCC's...Rules Governing Customer Antennas and Other Unlicensed Equipment (bold emphasis added)

Here is a link to the ruling itself, for those interested:

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

I remember that Slashdot story. And just today, in fact, I was looking around on the FCC's website when I found that they do in fact auction off some of the spectrum. Although it's nowhere near enough to fend off monopoly-driven corporations from eating up the entire spectrum, as the author of the original article speculates. Moreso, as the author of the parent comment mentioned, the FCC sticks up for the little guys and the services that wouldn't necessarily be able to fund themselves, such as amateur radio, citizens band, family radio service, instructional television, and other wireless services.

I remember that Slashdot story. And just today, in fact, I was looking around on the FCC's website when I found that they do in fact auction off some of the spectrum. Although it's nowhere near enough to fend off monopoly-driven corporations from eating up the entire spectrum, as the author of the original article speculates. Moreso, as the author of the parent comment mentioned, the FCC sticks up for the little guys and the services that wouldn't necessarily be able to fund themselves, such as amateur radio, citizens band, family radio service, instructional television, and other wireless services.

I remember that Slashdot story. And just today, in fact, I was looking around on the FCC's website when I found that they do in fact auction off some of the spectrum. Although it's nowhere near enough to fend off monopoly-driven corporations from eating up the entire spectrum, as the author of the original article speculates. Moreso, as the author of the parent comment mentioned, the FCC sticks up for the little guys and the services that wouldn't necessarily be able to fund themselves, such as amateur radio, citizens band, family radio service, instructional television, and other wireless services.

I remember that Slashdot story. And just today, in fact, I was looking around on the FCC's website when I found that they do in fact auction off some of the spectrum. Although it's nowhere near enough to fend off monopoly-driven corporations from eating up the entire spectrum, as the author of the original article speculates. Moreso, as the author of the parent comment mentioned, the FCC sticks up for the little guys and the services that wouldn't necessarily be able to fund themselves, such as amateur radio, citizens band, family radio service, instructional television, and other wireless services.

I remember that Slashdot story. And just today, in fact, I was looking around on the FCC's website when I found that they do in fact auction off some of the spectrum. Although it's nowhere near enough to fend off monopoly-driven corporations from eating up the entire spectrum, as the author of the original article speculates. Moreso, as the author of the parent comment mentioned, the FCC sticks up for the little guys and the services that wouldn't necessarily be able to fund themselves, such as amateur radio, citizens band, family radio service, instructional television, and other wireless services.

There are very few exceptions to this rule. Legitimate safey regulations (which is very narrowly defined), regulations related to the preservation of properties listed on the National Register of Historic places, you can't damage someone elses property with your antenna (drilling holes in a railing or roof you don't own), reasonable size restrictions, and finally it has to be in your own private space, not a common area.

If you take a look at a lot of apartment complexes these days you'll notice a lot of satellite antennas mounted to buckets sitting on decks. This ruling is why. The apartment complexes hate it, they think they're ugly, but there is nothing they can do about it.

Incidentally this same ruling was ammended to apply to fixed wireless, and yes they do mention Internet access. I don't think it's too difficult to say that this existing ruling already preempts any potential contract clause that you're worried about. At a minimum I think it shows how the FCC would end up ruling on the issue.

I can't seem to find this new ruling online yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it also already dealt with this issue. I would imagine that the airlines lease included some sort of clause like this.

In fact, the CW requirement has been eliminated from the Technician licsense for a number of years (FCC). The General licsense allows opperation on certain CW only bands that the Technician licsense does not. It makes sense to keep a code requirement if people are going to be allowed to operate on CW only frequencies.

Actually, according to a federal mandate, all cell phones are/will be required to include GPS receivers to aid with 911 calls.

Here's the FCC page.

Ahem... isn't this state-sponsored censorship?

Market surveys indicate there is a high demand for pornography on TV. Why doesn't the FCC allow it?

Then I wonder what all this fuss is about. All in all,

I hope you are wrong. :-(

Now that the FCC is moving towards a broadcast flag for radio, how long until all radio broadcasts must be digital, forever ending the experimentation with crystal radio sets?

Well, on the TV side, 2006. Not certain about radio. Nice to know many of our wonderful TV Sets with rabbit ears won't work anymore. But then again, it seems most people are on cable or satelite these days.

Your home-owners' association cannot (under most circumstances) prohibit your placement of a dish under one meter (39.37") in diameter: Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule. I understand that you may not want to get into a confrontation with the local Neighborhood Nazis, but you do have rights that they cannot curtail even with a written neighborhood code.

If a sponsored record is properly disclaimed, no secrecy exists and it is not payola. Period. It's not a loophole in the law: it *is* the law.

Sponsored records are a risky play for stations, but not because of questions of ethics. They're risky because, by definition, most of these songs are too weak to be incorporated in a station's regular playlist. Radio market competition is pretty aggressive, and burdening your record rotations with deadwood ain't bright. People usually tune out when they hear unfamiliar or inferior music, which is why radio stations spend millions each year on music research.

Radio is so competitive and business has been so depressed since 9/11 (it's better this year) that station budgets are razor-thin. The first thing to go is usually the Promotions budget. If a station accepts a sponsored record -- and this practice is pretty unusual, in my experience -- the money usually goes into the Promotions line. That way, we can buy the free tshirts, stickers, and the freebies you demand when we show up in the station van for a public appearance.

Our company experimented with various (properly identified) national music promotions a couple years back. They didn't work out too well, and most of station managers and programmers are unwilling to compromise their ratings with weak music. That's because YOU won't listen if we do. And your listenership is how we sell advertising to keep our stations on the air and our people paid.

Would you like to influence our playlists? Go buy music instead of illegally swapping it. We actually look at sales figures when making playlist decisions.

As for the spins sponsored records receive: who do you think they influence? Other radio folks, most of whom are bright enough to recognize when a weak record is getting an unusual number of plays. So buying record sponsorships is really targeted at stimulating direct sales, not further airplay.

I almost hate to suggest this, but maybe we need a vchip for radios. Broadcasters could then transmit a rating code and the listener could then decide what they wished to hear and no one would accidentally run across objectionable material. If you tune into a show that has a rating other than what was set, maybe the radio could play Feelings over and over again.

Manufacturers could even add password protection to the rating settings, but I don't really think that would be necessary.

What I don't seem to get is why this is happening. I mean.. I know that some of it is not meant for kids, but PARENTS need to learn to turn those programs off in front of their kids. No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it.

Or for parents who are too busy with themselves, get a set with the v-chip. What gets me is, IIRC, the cable channels aren't under the same FCC guidelines, which is why HBO can run movies uncensored, and why Comedy Central got away with the infamous "shit" episode, in which the writers manage to work the uncensored word "shit" into the episode 162 times (with a counter and all). For the most part, the cable networks are censoring their content voluntarially. I, for one, would hope that the viewer populace/ad revenues definitely would make it worth their time.

Below cost is a very debatable point.

The prices that CLECs were getting charged were pretty outrageous in some cases.

But there's a lot of room for argument, because the RBOCs could say that the colocation fees should include costs of certain other parts of their businesses that monopoly regulations required them to do. If it costs them, then it should cost the CLECs, goes the reasoning. But 20K per month to stick a box in a CO?

Those kinds of debatable issues are why I think a publicly-owned data link might be a good idea.

Insofar as regulation stifling innovation, I wouldn't worry too much. Innovation will work its way around regulations like water works around rocks in the middle of the stream. Even as innovators have room to come up with more efficient cars and trucks to run on public roads, the people producing content and new protocols for IP or IPv6 traffic can continue to do so, independent of whether the government owns and maintains the last mile fiber lines to millions of houses.

Shoot, a sizable chunk of my local phone bill from the local monopoly includes tacked on fees (let's call them for what they are - taxes), one supposedly for something caled "universal connectivity."

It's not much of a leap to make the government actually responsible for installing and maintaining the lines for that universal connectivity that is suggested by the name given to that current tax.

People want an open public form of communcation, but are unwilling to accept telephone calls from people that they don't want to hear. I think it's interesting that people expect others (i.e. government) to go after these individuals in the hope that it will put an end to all unwated telephone calls...

Regulating such calls would be untenable. Legislating an end to telemarketing calls entirely--that would be totally unreasonable. Right.

There are also laws regarding junk faxes and restrictions on junk snail mail. Having the government regulate advertising in telecommunications is not exactly a new concept. It it unreasonable that people expect them to step in for email as well?

Um you might just find out they they do and will by looking here. But that might be to hard for a "moron."

In any case, good luck finding an unused spot on the FM band. Oh, and you have to prove to the FCC that your school's station won't interfere with any existing stations within a frequency range from 0.6MHz above to 0.6MHz below your operating frequency. Is your school's station broadcasting material that doesn't cast a flattering light on the government? Be ready for the letter from the FCC notifying you that your state's Department of Highway Safety is taking your frequency over, so you can't broadcast anymore - and since you're no longer licensed, you must dispose of your broadcasting equipment within 90 days or be fined for possessing unlicensed broadcasting equipment. By the way, nobody will buy the stuff that you paid big bucks for because they can't get licensed for it either.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. See the FCC's page on LPFM for what the FCC themselves say about LPFM.

Who knows? Currently the driving forces behind deeming media displays as indecent are powerful government lobbies from conservative right-wingers who believe that the world should be sugar and spice.

Wrong. The driving force behind this latest craziness is Democrat Michael Copp. Do some research before spouting this bullshit.

Why, here's a speech by Copp you might find enlightening. "I have been urging top-level industry attention to indecency for a long time."

Powell might want to fine companies, but Copp actually wants to take away FCC licenses based on "decency" standards in order to put a scare into the broadcasters.

Right-wing, indeed. "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?!"

1. 2-way radio Licensing
2. my DSL connection.

Any person can walk into the local Walmart Super store or the local five and dime and purchase a pair of "5-mile, 22 channel (8 GMRS, 14 FRS) 2-way radios" and a pack of batteries for about $30 US, walk out to the parking lot and start using them - all at risk of fines, and possible federal prison time because you have to be 18 and obtain an FCC license for the GMRS bands. From fcc.gov "The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is a land-mobile radio service available for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of an adult individual and his or her immediate family members, including a spouse, children, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, and in-laws (47 CFR 95.179). Normally, as a GMRS system licensee, you and your family members would communicate among yourselves over the general area of your residence or during recreational group outings, such as camping or hiking."

Here's the list of prohibited uses of the GMRS band: (For your reference, a station is defined as any unit, stationary or mobile, capable of broadcasting on the GMRS frequencies.)

(a) A station operator must not communicate:
(1) Messages for hire, whether the remuneration received is direct
or indirect;
(2) Messages in connection with any activity which is against
Federal, State, or local law;
(3) False or deceptive messages;
(4) Coded messages or messages with hidden meanings (``10 codes''
are permissible);
(5) Intentional interference;
(6) Music, whistling, sound effects or material to amuse or
entertain;
(7) Obscene, profane or indecent words, language or meaning;
(8) Advertisements or offers for the sale of goods or services;
(9) Advertisements for a political candidate or political campaign
(messages about the campaign business may be communicated);
(10) International distress signals, such as the word ``Mayday''
(except when on a ship, aircraft or other vehicle in immediate danger to
ask for help);
(11) Programs (live or delayed) intended for radio or television
station broadcast;
(12) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and
transmitted by a GMRS station;
(13) Messages (except emergency messages) to any station in the
Amateur Radio Service, to any unauthorized station, or to any foreign
station;
(14) Continuous or uninterrupted transmissions, except for
communications involving the immediate safety of life or property;
(15) Messages for public address systems.
(b) A station operator in a GMRS system licensed to a telephone
answering service must not transmit any communications to customers of
the telephone answering service.

I guess "Jimmy's a big fat doodie-head violates #3 and who's advertsing jobs on their walkie-talkie anyway?

Lastly, my DSL connection. My local telco is Verizon and the CO is just under a mile from here. Verizon won't offer DSL in our area - I have to get it through a local ISP. The ISP charges me $35 per month for access; Verizon pops $37.50 + $5.70 tax on my monthly phone bill for "Advanced Data Services Charges" for a grand total of $78.20 per month to get 768/128 ADSL. Whether I get it from Verizon or a third-party, I'm paying Verizon's monthly fee. There is no other broadband choice around here and Verizon must know it. I called them one day to ask why I can't purchase the DSL from them or why they won't offer it in this area, the response was "Our circuits are all full so we can't offer it in your area." I'm pretty sure that fits Webster's definition of extortion.

The FCC does more than just assign spectrum. It also runs enforcement and regulation for our radio frequencies and guards against things such as harmful interference, stepping in with action when needed. Which other governmental organization would keep the technical know-how in house that allows them to track down harmful interference based on field reports?

Furthermore, the FCC guards our markets and prevents monopolies from snatching up too much of a particular spectrum, service, or market. The author seems to think that market dynamics would themselves guard against monopolies with high pricing of spectrum and our current monopoly-prevention laws, but I disagree with this. I don't think the spectrum will be priced out of reach of many corporations. There was recently a desire on the part of various corporations to consolidate the FM broadcast spectrum, and I remember this being heavily debated in various publications. Also, the FCC does already regulates our spectrum based upon our monopoly laws. Which other government agency would handle this for us?

considering that the price for buying 3G bandwidth financially crippled many Telco's, wifi with VOIPcould be a good way to deliver on the promise of high bandwidth phone technologies.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits telemarketing calls to numbers for which the subscriber would bear a cost for the telemarketing call. Here's an article by the telemarketing "industry" whining about the law as it relates to number portability.

While most apartment complexes "ban" satellite dishes for their tenants, there is an interesting law explained here that in most cases does allow you to have a dish as long as your apartment is facing the right direction and there aren't trees in the way.

As for markets forcing change, with so few entities, all content providers (satellite and cable) look very much alike. Not until the bar to entry is lowered will the invisible hand force change.

First, I admit that I haven't been following this topic for a couple of years.

Just to be safe, let's look at a site you won't doubt instead.

The target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV is December 31, 2006. However, that date may be extended until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the analog channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses.

That answers the question of when phase-out occurs. The broadcasters must already be transmitting digital before 2006. (The other article linked below has a timeline)

And how do they know when the threshold is met? I don't know, but I noticed this little piece:
"A broadcaster can also use DTV to provide interactivity and data services that were not possible with analog technology."

On the topic of new sets:
Will I Need a New TV?
Your current television will work as it does now until analog broadcasting stops. Under federal law, analog service will continue until DTV service and equipment are widely available. Even after the transition is over, your current TV will not become obsolete. A converter box can be used to receive DTV signals and change them into the format of your current television. Converters for over-the-air broadcasts are available at retail stores.

I'm having a hard time finding these converters through internet searches. If a couple million households will need to buy these, I would assume more interest. The cynic in me is saying that it's probably better business to introduce a customer to a shiny new TV rather than to a small accessory. And from what I've found, the converters are all $100+.


I also noticed this site. The timeline halfway down gives some interesting highlights like:
"In November 2001, following the World Trade Center disaster and in consideration of the country's economic downturn, the FCC threw a huge bone to broadcasters with a loosening of the DTV deadlines."

It also mentions some sort of a timetable for when stations needed to comply with transmition, but I don't know what to make of it with statements like:
"Financial hardship" may now be an acceptable excuse for missing a deadline.

However, all dates listed there are before 2006.

If you follow the link you will be shown how to respond to the FCC inquiries by e-mail.

To prove that this method works, there were 43 comments filed so far in one matter and mostly by Sirius subscribers in response to one of our matters under the jurisdiction of the FCC. You can see it in action at this link.

There were only 3 posted prior to us being informed how to contact FCC and someone making a rudimentary PHP script.

I unfortunately don't have the time to deal with the slashdot effect on a hosted application.

The FCC posts the comments on its website very fast and they do respond quickly. I am not sure about the docket number yet. Remember this and use it on June 16.

A thousand comments filed with the FCC in opposition will carry immense weight.

Thank you.

If you follow the link you will be shown how to respond to the FCC inquiries by e-mail.

To prove that this method works, there were 43 comments filed so far in one matter and mostly by Sirius subscribers in response to one of our matters under the jurisdiction of the FCC. You can see it in action at this link.

There were only 3 posted prior to us being informed how to contact FCC and someone making a rudimentary PHP script.

I unfortunately don't have the time to deal with the slashdot effect on a hosted application.

The FCC posts the comments on its website very fast and they do respond quickly. I am not sure about the docket number yet. Remember this and use it on June 16.

A thousand comments filed with the FCC in opposition will carry immense weight.

Thank you.

The Do Not Call list could not have applied to cell phones because previously, telemarketers were barred from calling any phone where the receiver of the call could be charged for it (i.e. cell phone minutes). I guess that law has changed since inception, or otherwise, the cell phone companies have found a way to make incoming telemarketer calls "free."

I don't think the The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (quoted here) has been repealed or amended to remove the prohibition on calling numbers where the consumer would pay for the call. However, that prohibition only restricts *autodialers*, not humans. How is someone supposed to prove without a subpoena that this has occurred?

Plus, very, very few people actually use the private right-of-action supported by that statute, so the telemarketers who do break the law get away with it. My workplace receives tons of unsolicited faxed advertisements, but the company's legal department doesn't want to pursue them and says the equivalent of "Just Hit Delete".

I just downloaded the TCPA from the FCC web site, curious to know what exactly the wording for cellular restrictions was. I was suprised to find this entry:

160. In the 2002 Notice, the Commission noted that the TCPA permits the Commission to exempt from the restrictions on autodialer or prerecorded message calls, "calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of the privacy rights [the TCPA] is intended to protect." In the 1992 TCPA Order, the Commission concluded that calls made by cellular carriers to their subscribers for which the subscribers were not charged do not fall within the prohibitions on autodialers or prerecorded messages.

So what Verizon does was actually legal. That said, I still don't like it.

I didn't enter my cell phone number when I joined the DNC list. It isn't getting any telemarketing calls anyway, and telemarketing to cell phones is illegal according to the TCPA already, so it seemed unnecessary. If I start getting telespam calls to my cell, *then* I'll register it.

No, it's not. Telemarketing to cell phones is already illegal and has been for some time.

The FCC has information on their website.

And here's the official FCC link to the TCPA which details that it is illegal to call not only a cell phone, but also hospitals or any service where someone is charged for the call. Read. Learn. Fight back.

The FCCis in the process of making rules to protect consumers regarding cell phones and spam. On another related note: The American Teleservices Association filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry. If the Court takes the case, I do not believe that they will over turn the 10th Circuit's decision.

Aside from 911/e911, another important thing government regulation does is to ensure accessibility to people with disabilities. This was the conclusion from a panel of experts at a recent public forum on VoIP.

However, a powered repeater is a device which requires a license to install. If you install it, the carrier can have the FCC come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Carriers do *not* like unauthorized picocells, and *do* report them to the FCC. You are intruding on *their* frequencies, for which they pay an obscene amount to the FCC.

The ARRL reports every month on FCC enforcement actions against unlicensed idiots with radio gear. The fines are not cheap.

Go with the passive approach, it's *much* safer, as well as cheaper just for the hardware. If you have problems with it, just ask a ham for help; we love this stuff!