Slashdot Mirror

My state's Do-Not-Call List has kept my phone blissfully silent for the last year or so. But the various DNC List laws have several loopholes. Perhaps the worst is the political campaign loophole. Worse yet, many of those campaigns are using automated responders which simply play a recording if you (or your answering machine) answers. Our primary is today, over the last three days I've gotten a half dozen unwelcome political calls and a dozen hung up calls that I can only guess are predictive dialers. For a phone that normally rings one a week this was a huge irritation. At least they haven't started calling my cell phone (yet).

If the jammer is manufactured to respect the bands reserved for public safety personnel, then what's the problem?

These bands are not within or close to those used for private, civilian purposes, and have been designated in order that police, fire, medical, and road crews can receive their communications when other infrastructures are down. There's a (rather incomplete) FCC site dedicated to explaining how this system works.

Bringing up the doctor scenario seems quite popular in this discussion, but a jammer that is blocking your cell phone is not going to be blocking a doctor's pager (or police radio, towtruck cb, fireman's pager, etc).

You'll just have to get used to the idea that sometimes Johnny might just have to go without his crack until you leave the theatre.

I have an old pager that operates at ~929 MHz. It would be jammed by many of these cell phone jammers, according to their published specifications. The jammer doesn't know whether or not it is jamming a pager used for emergency purposes.

No, but the FCC does.

If your pager was issued by an organisation that performed emergency services, such as a police depatrtment, a hospital, fire department, or a tow-truck company, it would not operate at the 929 MHz band, but in one of the "Public Safety Radio Pool" bands (which can be found in this document) There's more information about this from the FCC.

Another difference between the power lines and your cell phone is that the wavelength of the RF used by the cell phone is much more likely to interact with your body than 50/60Hz. A 2 meter tall human is approximately:

• a fullwave at 150 MHz
• a half wave at 75 MHz
• a quarter wave at 37.5 MHz.

At cell phone freqs, (850 MHz, 1900 MHz), parts of the body begin to exhibit resonances; 850 MHz = 35.3 cm, 1900 MHz = 15.8 cm. If you're curious, there are MPE limits (Maximum Permissible Exposure) that apply to RF sources regulated by the FCC. Amateur radio operators, cell tower operators, etc must abide by these safety rules. Oddly, the limits seem not to apply under 300 KHz.

Another difference between the power lines and your cell phone is that the wavelength of the RF used by the cell phone is much more likely to interact with your body than 50/60Hz. A 2 meter tall human is approximately:

• a fullwave at 150 MHz
• a half wave at 75 MHz
• a quarter wave at 37.5 MHz.

At cell phone freqs, (850 MHz, 1900 MHz), parts of the body begin to exhibit resonances; 850 MHz = 35.3 cm, 1900 MHz = 15.8 cm. If you're curious, there are MPE limits (Maximum Permissible Exposure) that apply to RF sources regulated by the FCC. Amateur radio operators, cell tower operators, etc must abide by these safety rules. Oddly, the limits seem not to apply under 300 KHz.

As previously covered at Slashdot here... The Federal Emergency Management Agency submitted comments to the FCC stating their desire to not see BPL go into widespread implementation. Apparently it interferes with high frequency radio transmissions which are used by FEMA and others (think HAM radio operators). You can see FEMA's comments and a FAQ on the objections (slanted towards the HAM radio operators) here Forgot to add that in these post-9/11 times, it will be interesting to see who wins, Dept. of Homeland Security and their paranoia over infrastructure or the free-market wheelers and dealers at the FCC who think regulation is for the birds.

It is illegal in most cases for a homeowners association to prohibit you from installing a satellite TV antenna of the type used by DirecTV or Dish Network.

However, the new Dish 921 HDTV PVR is cool if you can put up with 25 hours of HDTV PVR and can afford to put an antenna on your house. Most new developments in my area do not allow exterior antennas.

This FCC rule overrides whatever might be in your CC&Rs WRT antennas and dishes. If your HOA gives you grief because you put up a small antenna to pull in HDTV, you can tell them to go fsck themselves, and there will be nothing they can do about it.

The $275 non-refundable portion does not seem reasonable under the FCC's definitions. Here is the actual FCC information on the subject. One huge problem with the FCC rules when it comes to satellite reception is that they only preserve your right to place antennas on property you directly control, which means that if you only have windows or balconies that face North, or if you have Southern exposure, but there are obstructions that prevent you from seeing the satellite, then you're out of luck.

not likely, you dont get to choose your call.

Actually, you can get vanity callsigns.

In the past, the FCC has changed the rules to make it illegal to listen to cordless phone conversations and illegal to listen to or even have, manufactor, or have equipment hacks that can receive analog cell phone frequncies. If X-10 or any wireless applicance provider had the lobby power of the communications industry, they could get the same laws passed to fool or hide flaws from the consumers also.

I'm assuming that you people in the USA dont have a band allocated to the FRS?

Here in Canada, we have something called (you guessed it) FRS. Stands for Family Radio Service. The handsets run for around 25-40 bux canadian. You can usually get them in a pair for 50 dollars. They put out a half watt on vhf(get about a mile of range), and operate in a band allocated ONLY to the frs. There are..14 channels?

Hm, some quick googling turns up the fact that you DO have frs down there. Other than intermod, there isnt really much interference on the band. If you are using normal walkie-talkies, try some FRS radios. If the channel you are on has interference..switch to one of the others.

Here is the bandplan from the fcc.

Here are the radios at Best buy.

"You may use your FRS unit for business-related communications.
License documents are neither needed nor issued. You are provided authority to operate a FRS unit in places where the FCC regulates radio communications as long as you use only an unmodified FCC certified FRS unit. An FCC certified FRS unit has an identifying label placed on it by the manufacturer. There is no age or citizenship requirement."

~J

This is sort of related to the GPS comment...

Most major carriers have implemented E911 location tracking in their networks. Basically this works by triangulating your position from two or more cell towers (actually, its considerably more complicated than that... and it gives me a headache to think about).

That means that your cell carrier can find your position in the event you call 911.

Also, for the more paranoid... the use of this service is an expensive allocation of resources; thus, in general it isn't used to snoop on people.

RF and magnetic exposure are understood based upon rigorous studies. Take a look at OET65 for both what is regulated as well as references to the hard science behind it.

Most of the dead air phone calls you get are probably predictive dialing by telemarketers. I found that my state's do-not-call list basically eliminated them. Of course, these day's it's easy to get on the national do-not-call list.

The FCC has already declared unsolicited ads in SMS messages to violate the provision of 47 USC 227 which prohibits unsolicited messages to cellphones, pagers, and any other service where the recepient incurs a charge.

The FCC explicitly declared (see paragraph 165) using up a "bucket" of monthly minute/message allotments to be a message where you incured a charge.

You get to collect a mandatory $500 in your local small claims court for each message.

Go ahead punk advertiser ... press send and make my day. I can use the $$$.

I'm not quite so ready to believe the health-realated concerns, but the interference problems that will result from an implementation of BPL are very real. I've seen a demonstration of BPL's interference at a local hamfest here in the Washington, DC area (For those interested, AMRAD will also be giving a presentation at the DC area Winterfest hamfest in February). BPL makes a lot of noise on an HF receiver, across the entire tuning range! But what is potentially even worse is that a relatively small amount of power (I believe they gave the example of 10 watts into a dipole at reasonable proximity) is enough to cause a link to fail.

Undoubtedly, a ham radio operator's neighbors, and perhaps the power company, will put a lot of pressure on him to cease operating a ham radio. This is totally backwards! Let's revisit the Part 15 rules for a minute - the regulations that apply to unlicensed services, including BPL. It says that an unlicensed device MAY NOT cause harmful interference to a licensed service but an unlicensed device must accept any harmful interference received.

This basically means that the burden for resolving any interference problem is on the head of the unlicensed service, in this case, the power company - at least in theory. I have a hard time believing it will play out this way though. In fact, when the FCC asked for comments on a notice of inquiry with regards to relaxing part 15 standards, many power companies claimed that NO INTERFERENCE PROBLEM EXISTS, and it is up to other users to PROOVE it, before they should be required to act on it. This is a total reversal of the roles established by Part 15! And that is leaving aside the fact that there are several studies done by hams, including a very good one from AMRAD, that do proove, both empiracally and mathematically, the interference threat. BPL promoters, including the heads at the FCC, have turned a blind eye.

HF radio is used to provide long-distance communications during disasters by many groups, including ham radio organizations, and FEMA. (FEMA has recently weighed in on the debate) It also carries shortwave broadcast from other countries, which would be sqaushed by interference.

It does not make sense that the FCC should allow an unlicensed user to render this huge chunk of spectrum totally useless to it's intended users. It's selfish and shortsighted.

Please write your congressperson. Make them aware of the problems BPL could bring.

I'm not quite so ready to believe the health-realated concerns, but the interference problems that will result from an implementation of BPL are very real. I've seen a demonstration of BPL's interference at a local hamfest here in the Washington, DC area (For those interested, AMRAD will also be giving a presentation at the DC area Winterfest hamfest in February). BPL makes a lot of noise on an HF receiver, across the entire tuning range! But what is potentially even worse is that a relatively small amount of power (I believe they gave the example of 10 watts into a dipole at reasonable proximity) is enough to cause a link to fail.

Undoubtedly, a ham radio operator's neighbors, and perhaps the power company, will put a lot of pressure on him to cease operating a ham radio. This is totally backwards! Let's revisit the Part 15 rules for a minute - the regulations that apply to unlicensed services, including BPL. It says that an unlicensed device MAY NOT cause harmful interference to a licensed service but an unlicensed device must accept any harmful interference received.

This basically means that the burden for resolving any interference problem is on the head of the unlicensed service, in this case, the power company - at least in theory. I have a hard time believing it will play out this way though. In fact, when the FCC asked for comments on a notice of inquiry with regards to relaxing part 15 standards, many power companies claimed that NO INTERFERENCE PROBLEM EXISTS, and it is up to other users to PROOVE it, before they should be required to act on it. This is a total reversal of the roles established by Part 15! And that is leaving aside the fact that there are several studies done by hams, including a very good one from AMRAD, that do proove, both empiracally and mathematically, the interference threat. BPL promoters, including the heads at the FCC, have turned a blind eye.

HF radio is used to provide long-distance communications during disasters by many groups, including ham radio organizations, and FEMA. (FEMA has recently weighed in on the debate) It also carries shortwave broadcast from other countries, which would be sqaushed by interference.

It does not make sense that the FCC should allow an unlicensed user to render this huge chunk of spectrum totally useless to it's intended users. It's selfish and shortsighted.

Please write your congressperson. Make them aware of the problems BPL could bring.

The FCC held a Forum the first of this month to discuss this technology, the webcast is archived here.

The FCC's release says it's been allocated 5.850 - 5.925 GHz. The press release (it's a PDF) has some background on the service, and also a few notes on things that have to happen before the use of this new radio service can become widespread.

Don't forget that other tracking device that we all carry, cell phones. It's constantly transmitting while powered on. Right now, the phone company only logs your location by cell site, a radius of many miles. Police could still find someone by triangulating their signal with specialized (meaning expensive) equipment, but E911 changes all that. They'll be required to pinpoint the location of any caller by 50-100 meters.

I think that part of the Lessons Learned will be the structure of the schedule of fines levied by the FCC.

I rather suspect that Riley Hollingsworth and his colleagues will probably want to have a chat with them about it.

People keep forgetting that the 2.4GHz band used by the wireless LANs is primarily allocated to the Government Radiolocation Service, and to the Amateur Radio Service on a secondary basis. Wireless LANs and other Part 15 cruft have strict ERP limits imposed on them for very, very good reasons.

Nice idea-- it's a hassle to change your ISP and inform all your email contacts of your new address. Why do most ISPs seem ignorant about the concept of forwarding email to your new address? I'd like to see an initiative for email address provider independence, like the new FCC Wireless Local Number Portability [fcc.gov] rule, which allows you to keep your cell phone number when you switch wireless providers. What role does the FCC play in email, anyways?

Have your filed a complaint with the FCC?

FCC Consumer Factsheet on Wireless Portability right here.

CARRIERS
In addition to the duties contained in subsection (b), each incumbent local exchange carrier has the following duties:
(3) UNBUNDLED ACCESS- The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section and section 252. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.

CARRIERS
In addition to the duties contained in subsection (b), each incumbent local exchange carrier has the following duties:
(3) UNBUNDLED ACCESS- The duty to provide, to any requesting telecommunications carrier for the provision of a telecommunications service, nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis at any technically feasible point on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the requirements of this section and section 252. An incumbent local exchange carrier shall provide such unbundled network elements in a manner that allows requesting carriers to combine such elements in order to provide such telecommunications service.

According to the FCC website, while there is an industry approved standard of 2.5 hours, there is no set FCC rule as to how long it should take. Now, if AT&T can not get their ETR down to a reasonable time, then the FCC could step in and impose a mandated timeframe along with fines for failing to comply. But I would not expect that to happen anytime soon.

From the FCC FAQ:

How long will the porting process take?

For a wireless to wireless transfer, the porting process should take approximately two and a half hours from the time the porting request is made of the old carrier. The FCC has not mandated a specific time frame for the porting process. Two and a half hours is the time frame agreed upon by the wireless industry, and the FCC supports and encourages carriers to use that time frame.

A wireline to wireless port will probably take longer to complete, and could take several days. Before porting between wireline and wireless phones, consumers should ask their new service provider how long the process will take.

According to the FCC website, while there is an industry approved standard of 2.5 hours, there is no set FCC rule as to how long it should take. Now, if AT&T can not get their ETR down to a reasonable time, then the FCC could step in and impose a mandated timeframe along with fines for failing to comply. But I would not expect that to happen anytime soon.

From the FCC FAQ:

How long will the porting process take?

For a wireless to wireless transfer, the porting process should take approximately two and a half hours from the time the porting request is made of the old carrier. The FCC has not mandated a specific time frame for the porting process. Two and a half hours is the time frame agreed upon by the wireless industry, and the FCC supports and encourages carriers to use that time frame.

A wireline to wireless port will probably take longer to complete, and could take several days. Before porting between wireline and wireless phones, consumers should ask their new service provider how long the process will take.

Yes, file a formal complaint with the FCC. It is very important that everyone who is experiencing these problems do exactly that.

It's very easy to do... it's just a matter of filling in a web form now. Instructions are available on the FCC's Number Portability Information Site:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/

An update on my end... I just spoke to someone in AT&T's number portability center. They said that they weren't able to look into my situation because they are limiting the number of people who can concurrently access the network. Think of it as AT&T's version of Rolling Blackouts. She said that she would have access some time before 11pm Central Time and agreed to call me back when she did. She also suggested that I try calling back to see if I get ahold of someone who DID have access. So I called back and the first several times I got a recording saying that they had a high volume of calls and that I should call back later and then disconnected. I didn't even have the option of waiting on hold. I kept redialing and now I'm finally in the hold queue. 25 minutes so far.

I tried porting a number from Sprint to Cingular, and they came back and said "not possible", which is bullshit. I decided to just forget that, and port my landline number to the new phone instead, from SBC (which is the parent of Cingular). They said "not possible". I've filed FCC complaints against both Sprint and SBC, and have been hounding SBC customer support for the last 6 days to get this resolved. The long and short of it is, there's a big fine for them to pay if they're not following the FCC mandate, and there's a very easy online way to file complaints with the FCC. Who knows how long it takes for the FCC to actually process the complaints, but I figure it can't hurt the later-adopters for us early-adopters to give the telcos a bureaucratic kick in the ass.

Your partically right, however, autodialed calls are not legal to your cell phone, per the FCC.

This story's poster probably should have read the articles before concluding that the government was on the path to regulating VoIP out of existence. Most of the FCC's regulatory leanings on this seem harmless to me.

Mostly harmless leanings:

Chairman Powell: No regulator, either federal or state, should tread into this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so."

Good - looks like they are trying to avoid stopping the technology with excessive regulation.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Wants to ensure 911 access. Quite an acceptable use of government regulatory authority. Hard to see how this could be a burden on VoIP systems.

Not mostly harmless

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: His first point was to bring up the concerns of the DOJ and FBI that they might have trouble wiretapping VoIP. Aside from the civil rights concerns, one can image many technical problems with this:
1. FCC mandates that US based VoIP firms provide a means for the DOJ / FBI to listen in.
2. VoIP firms outside US jurisdiction don't bother carrying out this mandate.
3. Those with something to hide use foreign VoIP firms.

On the whole, it looks like the current direction is not towards stifling over regulation. I don't see any signs of prostration to big monopolies in the chairman's or commissioners' remarks. Nonetheless, it's certainly advisable to let the FCC know your opinions and concerns to ensure that the eventual FCC conclusions are well-informed.

This story's poster probably should have read the articles before concluding that the government was on the path to regulating VoIP out of existence. Most of the FCC's regulatory leanings on this seem harmless to me.

Mostly harmless leanings:

Chairman Powell: No regulator, either federal or state, should tread into this area without an absolutely compelling justification for doing so."

Good - looks like they are trying to avoid stopping the technology with excessive regulation.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Wants to ensure 911 access. Quite an acceptable use of government regulatory authority. Hard to see how this could be a burden on VoIP systems.

Not mostly harmless

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: His first point was to bring up the concerns of the DOJ and FBI that they might have trouble wiretapping VoIP. Aside from the civil rights concerns, one can image many technical problems with this:
1. FCC mandates that US based VoIP firms provide a means for the DOJ / FBI to listen in.
2. VoIP firms outside US jurisdiction don't bother carrying out this mandate.
3. Those with something to hide use foreign VoIP firms.

On the whole, it looks like the current direction is not towards stifling over regulation. I don't see any signs of prostration to big monopolies in the chairman's or commissioners' remarks. Nonetheless, it's certainly advisable to let the FCC know your opinions and concerns to ensure that the eventual FCC conclusions are well-informed.

Now you've got me started...

The FCC won't let me be
or let me be me so let me see
They try and shut down Vee Oh I Pee
But the call'll be empty without me
So call on my box, it's the one that talks
Fuck that, tax the talk, and put a tax on that box
And get tall, cause this shit's gonna fall,
Cause I settled my tax bill, FUCK YOU MICHAEL!

Now this looks like a job for me
Now everybody, don't call me
Cause I don't have Vee Oh I Pee
And the calls are empty without me
I said this looks like a job for me
Now everybody, don't call me
Cause I don't have Vee Oh I Pee
And the calls are empty without me

Those of us who feel strongly about this should watch the webcast or attend in person. Be sure to submit your comments to the FCC afterwards.

It's your government. If you think regulating VOIP is a bad idea, let it know.

Usually, only the big companies and their lawyers take part in this process, but we all have the right to take part and let our opinions be known.

There apparently will be several live feeds available of the hearing tomorrow for those away from their TVs.

It seems one doesn't know what the other is doing.

The left hand is saying that kids should not be allowed to buy/view this "harmful" stuff.

The right hand is saying that it is OK to use the F-word on TV networks

You just gotta love the American government.

This is not an issue because Cisco and others are complying with the FED on interception equipment. Nor is the issue E911. For example Vonage directs 911 calls to the appropriate call center and verifies the service with the end user. Besides that even if you turn off your land line ( POTS ) it is still required by law to have dial tone that can call 911 and work with E911.

The real issue is the public good and the FCC is showing interest aka the "do not call" list. It would not hurt to remind the Commission of this issue and the publicity and attention that they recieve from the millions of happy consumers.

Is there something in the rule that says all content must have a flag? Is flag-less content presumed to be pirated?

New devices will look for a flag. If they find a flag, they get to decide if it can be copied. All new devices will look for flags. There is a specific known incompatibility with home burned DVDs (quickly putting people like Red Vs. Blue out of business) that are made with new equipment, as it won't play on the old.

Flags are added at the producers discretion, they are mandated on the hardware. There is a number of bits that can be flipped to delineate various levels of control.

As the 'regime' (their word) becomes integrated, it will slowly become the prevailing opinion that anything without a flag is suspect. My guess would be that eventually it would be mandated that all content have an 'officially legal tag' before it can be played.

Reading through that FCC decision makes it seem like the FCC is the red-headed stepchild and the MPAA and 'media industry' is the drunken truck-driver father. The way they kow-tow to this industry is sad, if not downright servile.

'Oh, no. They might hold back their content! I'm so scared'

Right, they'd hold back their content for about a day. There is a high-level poker game going on, and the people represeting 'us' are playing with their cards face-up on the table, never raising, and always calling.

I'm sure (or at least, I hope) I won't be the only one who will raise this very issue, but organizations like FCC or KRRiTV make absolutely no sense whatsoever in the context of Internet medium, in the opposition to common and finite mediums like ether, which we are forced to manage somehow for the common public good.

Yes, it was the strictly low-end residential tariff they are pushing that I was referring to. Thx for adding info to the discussion.

Something curious is that according to a study done for the Flordia Public Service Commission titled Broadband Services in the United States - An Analysis of Availability and Demand of the 4 majors, SBC has the largest percent subscription to broadband services - 5.9% as the "Customer Take Rate" taken from 1.5M Broadband Subscribers out of 25.6M Homes Passed. That's over Verizon, Bellsouth, and Quest. I guess the market is saying that their prices are quite reasonable.

The study is a bit dated (2002 Q1 figures), but it has pretty graphs and lots of info for those so inclined.

Many thanks to the funny candy company for making this all possible.

If they complain tell them to Shove It FCC Regulations [www.fcc.gov] forbid HOA's from restricting recievers unless they are over a certain size limit

Oreo