Slashdot Mirror

By the way, you can get internal photos, etc here

is there some magical threshhold of adoption when the FCC finally says "okay, pull the plug...we have 88% adoption".

That's correct. FCC has set the end of analog broadcast TV at either the end of 2006 or at 85 percent adoption of digital TV sets, whatever comes last. Details

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. However, even with a converter, your current analog television is not capable of displaying the full picture quality of DTV. To enjoy the full picture quality, you will need to purchase a DTV set. Subscribers to cable and DBS services should contact their providers regarding converters for those services.

What does that mean, exactly? is there some magical threshhold of adoption when the FCC finally says "okay, pull the plug...we have 88% adoption". This fucking sucks. I apologize if I offended anyone with my use of the words "this" or "sucks".

I know i can't be the only one that did this, but just in case:

FCC Contacts

I sent a small "I can't believe you made this decision" email to each of the listed contacts. I also have requsted information from TIVO and COMCAST as to their opinions on the matter, after noting that i will NOT pay any type of monthly fee for programing i cannot record according to my own free will.

You want to hurt these people, do it where it really counts:

Threaten their bottom line.

I encourage you to read the statments by Copps and Adelstein. While both of these individuals voted for the measure, the spent a considerable amount of time framing three general areas of dissent:

public domain: the flag should be limited to use only for materials which are copyrightable. For instance, government meetings should not be locked behind the flag

fair use: the flag does not provide a mechanism for educational use of the material where fair use of copyright would be permitted

privacy: improper use of this technology could be used in such a way that people lose privacy; the comments don't say it, but in the hearings it was voiced, "what good is first amendment protection if the government and/or political groups know who is listening to you"

I encourage you to read the statments by Copps and Adelstein. While both of these individuals voted for the measure, the spent a considerable amount of time framing three general areas of dissent:

public domain: the flag should be limited to use only for materials which are copyrightable. For instance, government meetings should not be locked behind the flag

fair use: the flag does not provide a mechanism for educational use of the material where fair use of copyright would be permitted

privacy: improper use of this technology could be used in such a way that people lose privacy; the comments don't say it, but in the hearings it was voiced, "what good is first amendment protection if the government and/or political groups know who is listening to you"

Interesting... in the report, it claims "not much" happened as a result from the outcry from the broadcast to make sure it didn't happen again.

As a former radio broadcaster, I can call BS on that -- one of the FCC's No No's includes things that would incite a panic falsely.

If you want more info on it, the FCC giveth.

The FCC should mandate that all over-the-air broadcasters begin broadcasting blah-format by some date.

Uh, they did. The mandate to have all televisions have an ATSC tuner/decoder is just another step on that transition.

Oh, and you can receive any format you please -- the FCC is merely mandating that the CE manufacturers include this tuner. They are not mandating the removal of the NTSC tuner -- although that will happen as a natural consequence of the NTSC phase-out and ATSC phase-in.

The ATSC phase-in is well behind schedule anyway. Right now 2010 or 2015 is a much more reasonable guess at when NTSC will have the plug pulled -- which would've been a much more reasonable estimate in the first place. But if they didn't put down 2006 on paper then the end number would've been more like 2020 or 2030.

BTW, the transition is picking up steam now, at least in the major markets. More cable providers are starting to offer HDTV (including locals), both major sat providers are providing HDTV (no locals), there's a third HDTV-only sat provider now (Voom!), and DirecTV is in the process of lofting some additional satellites specifically for increasing HDTV broadcasting (and they just beat down Dish in Loran's bankruptcy proceedings over them).

Mandating device design is not odd. Government does it all the time for cars, power plants, and numerous consumer items. The FCC does it for anything relating to the broadcast spectrum. You do realize that the NTSC format is a mandated device design, right?

You can report criminal telemarketers to three different enforcement agencies: The FCC, FTC and (sometimes) your state attorney general. All have Web forms, and the FCC's even has a drop-down boxes with a list of common offenders (eg. AT&T, SBC) and crimes (eg. failing to put you on the do-not-call list)!

I tried that number and was told to call or email (202) 418-0265 EDOCSHelp@fcc.gov according to this page

I tried that number and was told to call or email (202) 418-0265 EDOCSHelp@fcc.gov according to this page

"Please add this number to your do-not-call list."

Document all the info you can (date, time, name of person you spoke to if possible, etc.), and the next time you get a call from them, complain.

Or you can just use the text link on the FCC's website.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. Finally, complain to the media. If they get enough letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

Remember, VeriSign is busy telling them its side of the story. We need to tell them ours!

Overall IMHO listening to the comments in the joint news conference I think that they will go for the easy targets that get the most complaints first although they refuse to specify methods it is clear that they have the will to enforce.

Our Government in action! Who whould have thunk?

Then again...

Can I Keep the Same Wireline Telephone Number if I Switch My Local Telephone Service to a Cellular or Personal Communications Service (PCS) Telephone Service Provider or Vice-Versa?

Cellular and other wireless carriers are not required to provide telephone number portability at this time. For this reason, customers cannot retain the same local telephone number if they change their local service from a wireline local telephone company to a wireless carrier, like a cellular or PCS service provider. Likewise, customers cannot switch from a cellular or PCS service provider to a local wireline service provider and keep the same cellular or PCS telephone number.

According to the FCC, you can say 'fucking' now... (pdf)

Belgium! (European readers may be excused for not getting the joke...)

If you're talking about the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier Charge (PICC), it's not a tax. It was a payment mandated by the FCC that the long distance companies pay to the local phone companies, and it was set at about $1 per month for residence lines. Lots of long distance carriers charged up to $5 per month which is pure profiteering. It was really just a cost of doing business and they have no business charging you extra for that any more than they could charge a line item for the CEO's golden bidet. But they probably did it so they could say "don't blame us, it's a tax that the FCC forces us to collect". Which is a lie. I say "was" because that charge was eliminated for most phone lines in 2000. So if they're still collecting a "National Access Fee" in year 2003, consider it padding for the bill so they can offer you those low low long distance rates.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

Because there is a good chance nudity will be regulated and censored, I am in a great market for product placement!

Because there is a good chance nudity will be regulated and censored, I am in a great market for product placement!

We all know what we want from Linksys -- the Broadcom 802.11g drivers that are NDAed.

You want them so that Centrino laptops will have wireless support under Linux.

Broadcom has tons of GPLed network drivers already and we want this one too.

Here's why we probably won't get it anytime soon.

The Atheros 802.11a/b/g drivers were recently released on Sourceforge. However, the lowest-level hardware abstraction layer code was made closed-source.

This page explains their reasoning.

This code manages much of the chip-specific operation of the Atheros driver. The HAL is provided in a binary-only form in order to comply with FCC regulations. In particular, a radio transmitter can only be operated at power levels and on frequency channels for which it is approved. The FCC requires that a software-defined radio cannot be configured by a user to operate outside the approved power levels and frequency channels. This makes it difficult to open-source code that enforces limits on the power levels, frequency channels and other parameters of the radio transmitter.

Here is the regulation they cite.

Yeah it sucks. They are afraid we will screw with the settings.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

That's either going to be overturned on appeal, or the FCC and FTC will work out some organizational way to deal with it.

Even with the judge's ruling, the do-not-call registry should still apply to businesses directly regulated by the FCC, such as telephone companies.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member.

By email, phone, fax, telegram, or letter (or better, several of these), let them know what you think. These are the people who can give Verisign reasons to change their behavior.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member.

By email, phone, fax, telegram, or letter (or better, several of these), let them know what you think. These are the people who can give Verisign reasons to change their behavior.

My Verizon Tax Bill before Vonage:

911 funding fee 0.50
Dual party relay 0.11
Interstate access charge 6.50
Federal excise tax 0.85
State telcom sales tax 1.6
Federal Universl Service Fee 0.60
Svc Provider Number Portablility Fee 0.36
Universal Connectivity Charge 2.66
Bill Statement Fee 1.50
Federal Tax 0.80
State and local tax 1.61
Regulatory assessment fee 0.99

TOTAL TAX 18.11

So I figured a guess at the total take from Verizon lines at 18.11 my tax * 12 months * 135,000,000 customers = 29,338,200,000 Rounding it off to the even Billion for 30 Billion dollars a year in Tax.

My Verizon Tax Bill before Vonage:

911 funding fee 0.50
Dual party relay 0.11
Interstate access charge 6.50
Federal excise tax 0.85
State telcom sales tax 1.6
Federal Universl Service Fee 0.60
Svc Provider Number Portablility Fee 0.36
Universal Connectivity Charge 2.66
Bill Statement Fee 1.50
Federal Tax 0.80
State and local tax 1.61
Regulatory assessment fee 0.99

TOTAL TAX 18.11

So I figured a guess at the total take from Verizon lines at 18.11 my tax * 12 months * 135,000,000 customers = 29,338,200,000 Rounding it off to the even Billion for 30 Billion dollars a year in Tax.

My Verizon Tax Bill before Vonage:

911 funding fee 0.50
Dual party relay 0.11
Interstate access charge 6.50
Federal excise tax 0.85
State telcom sales tax 1.6
Federal Universl Service Fee 0.60
Svc Provider Number Portablility Fee 0.36
Universal Connectivity Charge 2.66
Bill Statement Fee 1.50
Federal Tax 0.80
State and local tax 1.61
Regulatory assessment fee 0.99

TOTAL TAX 18.11

So I figured a guess at the total take from Verizon lines at 18.11 my tax * 12 months * 135,000,000 customers = 29,338,200,000 Rounding it off to the even Billion for 30 Billion dollars a year in Tax.

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.

Only the party obtaining the FCC certification is allowed to specify another antenna. You, the user, cannot alter the device even if it meets the requirements of 15.247. Modifying approved transmitters is generally not allowed, with the notable exception of the Amateur Radio Service. A new configuration with higher antenna gain requires a new certification. 47CFR2:

2.932 Modification of equipment.

(a) A new application for an equipment authorization shall be filed whenever there is a change in the design, circuitry or construction of an equipment or device for which an equipment authorization has been issued, except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

(b) Permissive changes may be made in certificated equipment, and equipment that was authorized under the former type acceptance rocedure, pursuant to 2.1043.

2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.

(a) Changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of certification.

So unless you have the money to spend on a complete recertification (it's neither cheap nor easy), leave your wifi alone!

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.

Only the party obtaining the FCC certification is allowed to specify another antenna. You, the user, cannot alter the device even if it meets the requirements of 15.247. Modifying approved transmitters is generally not allowed, with the notable exception of the Amateur Radio Service. A new configuration with higher antenna gain requires a new certification. 47CFR2:

2.932 Modification of equipment.

(a) A new application for an equipment authorization shall be filed whenever there is a change in the design, circuitry or construction of an equipment or device for which an equipment authorization has been issued, except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

(b) Permissive changes may be made in certificated equipment, and equipment that was authorized under the former type acceptance rocedure, pursuant to 2.1043.

2.1043 Changes in certificated equipment.

(a) Changes to the basic frequency determining and stabilizing circuitry (including clock or data rates), frequency multiplication stages, basic modulator circuit or maximum power or field strength ratings shall not be performed without application for and authorization of a new grant of certification.

So unless you have the money to spend on a complete recertification (it's neither cheap nor easy), leave your wifi alone!

Companies of SBC:

Pacific Bell + Nevada Bell = Pacific Telesis

Illinois Bell + Indiana Bell + Michigan Bell + Ohio Bell + Wisconsin Bell = Ameritech

Southern New England Telephone Company (SNET)

Southwestern Bell

Pacific Telesis + Ameritech + SNET + Southwestern Bell = SBC.

Sounds to me like SBC is more like a partial re-assembly of the original monopoly.

Not that I don't respect SBC big-time for this decision.

(Source of data: US FCC, http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/armis/carrier_filing_histor y/COSA_History/sbtr.htm)

if you google my name, the first result is both my callsign and my dad's callsign showing our address, home phone number, etc. i mentioned it to my dad, and he didn't seem bothered by it. the only thing that worried him is whether it had our SSNs. it doesn't, so we're not worried.

in fact, more recently, if you look through the CDBS form 349 entries for Radio Assist Ministry and Edgewater Broadcasting, you'll find my name (in a handlful of applications) and the name (and address) of my current employer there. that doesn't bother me either.

honestly, if you're willing to get a licence, you should be willing to open yourself as a public contact. if you're not, then don't have a license for any broadcast permissions.

the FCC has always been public. why bother changing that?

The FCC has the information, even if it isn't listed in the publicly available database. See FCC Form 605.

Read the comments of one of the dissenting members.[pdf]

What gets me is they cite cable as competition as a reason for needing consolidation. For God's Sake, they own the cable channels they are "Competing" with.

I was surprised to see this up on FCC's website so quickly..... It's really nice to see Congress trying to prevent a train wreck that had more to do with the courts than anything started in the legistlative or executive branches.... And we all know which political party has few friends in and around the benches.

That's the whole point of the separation of powers! That the FCC is directly answerable to the president, and can't be trivially overridden by Congress, just because Congress is "more important" than some federal regulatoru commission.

No. The FCC is not part of the executive branch, it is part of the legislative branch and was created by the congress.

Check here if you don't believe me:
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

A choice quote:

Summary

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

MM
--

So let's look at numbers:

300 xmitters * 50mw = 15w

In my book, 15w in the microwave bands, is enough to cause problems in your eyes or lenses of your eyes which have little ability to dump heat.

The FCC's power limit commentary formed through National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 yielded this RF Guidelines which makes for very good reading compared to the /. stream on this article.

-- Multics

So let's look at numbers:

300 xmitters * 50mw = 15w

In my book, 15w in the microwave bands, is enough to cause problems in your eyes or lenses of your eyes which have little ability to dump heat.

The FCC's power limit commentary formed through National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 yielded this RF Guidelines which makes for very good reading compared to the /. stream on this article.

-- Multics

Fax.com is a nasty outfit. Read this dossier on them. Also read this story and this FCC report and this lawsuit by the California Attorney General's office which detail the kind of sleazy behavior fax.com and its constituents engage in.

Power levels fom 802.11b equipment are low enough that this shouldn't be an issue, even with high gain antennas. See OET Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields".

The Commission sought comment on calls made by radio stations or television broadcasters that encourage telephone subscribers to tune in at a particular time for a chance to win a prize or similar opportunity. . . . We conclude that if the purpose of the message is merely to invite a consumer to listen to or view a broadcast, such message is permitted under the current rules as a commercial call that "does not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement" and under the amended rules as "a commercial call that does not include or introduce an unsolicited advertisement or constitute a telephone solicitation."

Vanuatu.

IANAL, but I can't see how that claim could succeed.

"The courts have further defined the claim of tortious interference to require proof that the defendant did the following: (1) acted improperly and without privilege; (2) acted purposefully and maliciously with intent to injure; (3) induced a third party or parties not to enter into or continue a business relationship with the plaintiff; and (4) caused the plaintiff some financial injury." (from Findlaw)

A claim of tortious interference would surely fail on point 1 - AOL are perfectly within their rights to block mail from anyone they choose. Their FCC license after the TW merger didn't add any constraints in this regard.

I do not think that it is funny at all that we have a social tax and I have been fighting this tax as I live in a rural area and pay this tax twice. Read it for yourself the FCC has made it very clear for everyone to read.

And thanks to the discussion here I just ordered Vonage to use on my Cable Broadband connection!

"I don't trust Michael Powell."

You didn't read the article. This has nothing to do with Michael Powell. The article regards comments made by Tim Muris, chairman of the Federal Trade Commision. Michael Powell is chairman of the Federal Communications Commision.

After caving in to media interests and allowing further consolidation

That is a strange article to site in support of your belief that government should regulate broadcast communcations, which makes me think that you did not read it either. If you had, maybe you would have noticed the excerpts of congressional testimony. Democrats Byron Dorgan and Barbara Boxer site their own concern about the growing popularity of conservative political ideas in radio and TV broadcasting as justification for government regulation. It gives a good sense of their horror that the free speech permitted by under-regulation will allow conservative ideas to become even more popular. Boxer specifically uses the Fox News reference to France and Germany as the "Axis of Weasels" as an example of an undesirable political statement. Regardless of how the the public conceives of this issue of goverment regulation of communication, on the political level is not really about media consolidation, it is about censorship and free speech.

Here's what I had to say:

I am against permiting further expansion of Broadband over Power Line (BPL). The use of power lines to carry these signals turns them into log antenas, broadcasting interference throughout their length. As an Electrical Engineering student in college, I learned that signal strength falls off from a point source according to the inverse square law. From a wire, however, signal strength falls off much more slowly. In the past, power companies have demonstrated little interest in resolving complaints of power line noise. The increased noise produced by BPL is unlikely to be reduced if left to self-policing by the power industry.

One of the key players in the persuading the FCC to let AOLIM be kept is William P. Rogerson, former FCC chair and economist at Northwestern. I couldn't find his paper but the dissenting opinions of Gerald R. Faulhaber and David J. Farber; both UPenn Econmics professors give a great opinion on why AOL has been behaving badlly (All gentlemen have held high ranking positions on the FCC). Its in PDF but their criticisms of Rogerson's draft are striking,

"AOL Time Warner's strategic behavior has not changed, and that is perhaps the most compelling evidence that they believe they can eventually tip the market by refusing to interoperate. Such strategic behavior only makes sense if the market leader expects the market to tip in its favor; otherwise, interoperation is their best strategy. But the Petition and the Affidavit are strangely and tellingly silent on this key piece of evidence.

We also note that AOL Time Warner failed to exploit its newly acquired cable assets to deploy an AOL Broadband service. Since the firm had no Broadband service, it had little reason to care about advanced IM services such as two-way video that are not feasible on dial-up connections. However, AOL Time Warner has just recently begun marketing AOL Broadband, apparently now trying to capitalize on its cable assets. It should not come as a surprise that as AOL Time Warner rolls out its new broadband offering, it wishes to be relieved of the requirement to interoperate if it offers an IM-based high-speed service. Their behavior suggests that they may well have such a service ready to roll out soon as a feature of their AOL Broadband, and wish to keep their network effects proprietary. In fact, it is precisely this case that the Merger Order anticipated when it imposed the IM condition.

We urge the FCC to proceed cautiously. While conditions have evolved since the Merger Order that suggest network effects and tipping are not as urgent today, other evidence suggests that it is perhaps even more urgent. The FCC needs to recall that AOL Time Warner has in its own hands the ability to offer advanced IM-based highspeed services without let or hindrance: it need only interoperate with its competitors, as it promised the world it would do two years ago, to the benefit of all customers."