Slashdot Mirror

In the US, it's Section508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The cable company here charges $30/month for channels 2-13. I think if you want all the channels (including digital ones) it comes out to $80-90. And of course there's the receiver rental fee. So it could be worse.

Also, the owner of your building cannot prevent you from installing a satellite dish under one meter in diameter. See here for details.

I can confirm this. How do I know? I called the FCC last year and I asked. I believe the complaint form is Form 475, which can be found here.

Broadband is not failing. Early adopters were few and far between, but now more & more people are upgrading their connection. My home got a cable modem within the first year they were rolled out in my area (circa 2000). As of December 2002 there were 19.9 million broadband subscribers in the U.S.A. According to the FCC report that is a "23% increase during the second half of 2002." As more people adopt high-speed connections the prices will most likely drop; similar to what happened in the cell phone industry, with the cable modems being offered for free and other promotions.
The DRM and the DMCA have absolutely no effect on broadband usage in the US whatsoever. What the hell does the average person know about that? Zilch. They are probably more worried about getting pr0n to the desktop a bit faster.

This 2002 ruling criticized the FCC for the "arbitrary and capricious" 35% national ownership cap and told the FCC to reconsider it. Though he probably enjoyed doing it, Powell thus had very little choice in the matter of changing the cap, despite what everyone likes to believe. In fact, he has referred to this fact over and over again.

It may be possible to justify the 35% cap somehow. The judge did not destroy the cap, he basically just vacated it. On the other hand, he did wipe out the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule completely because he didn't think that it could be justified. The same logic is easily applied to the other major part of the June 2003 rule changes: newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. There is no point in arguing that point of the rules, as the Judicial Branch would throw it out the window immediately.

So, if you are all looking for someone to verbally crucify, look towards the judicial bench that prompted this rather than the FCC.

This 2002 ruling criticized the FCC for the "arbitrary and capricious" 35% national ownership cap and told the FCC to reconsider it. Though he probably enjoyed doing it, Powell thus had very little choice in the matter of changing the cap, despite what everyone likes to believe. In fact, he has referred to this fact over and over again.

It may be possible to justify the 35% cap somehow. The judge did not destroy the cap, he basically just vacated it. On the other hand, he did wipe out the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule completely because he didn't think that it could be justified. The same logic is easily applied to the other major part of the June 2003 rule changes: newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. There is no point in arguing that point of the rules, as the Judicial Branch would throw it out the window immediately.

So, if you are all looking for someone to verbally crucify, look towards the judicial bench that prompted this rather than the FCC.

In commissioner Copp's dissent, he claimed that all the people (citizens) he talked to, not one was for more media consolidation. It could simply be the democratic processes at work: do what your constituents want, and get reelected.

Mr. Powell previously served as the Chief of Staff of the Antitrust Division in the Department of Justice. In that capacity, he advised the Assistant Attorney General on substantive antitrust matters, including policy development, criminal and civil investigations and mergers. Prior to joining the Antitrust Division, Mr. Powell was an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, where he focused on litigation and regulatory matters involving telecommunications, antitrust and employment law.

This is the guy who is saying that it's perfectly OK for a small number of companies to gobble up even more media outlets.

I don't think Mr Powell has learned very much about antitrust.

Admittedly, the 2450MHz band is the same as WiFi, so most of us would be opposed to jamming that on general principles, but it looks like the 915MHz band is what is being used more often. The Alien Technology tags for 2450 look really big and expensive.

It should only take about a watt or two with a bandwidth of 26MHz in the low band or 56.5Hz in high band. (These numbers from the FCC web site:FCC frequency spectrum PDF Some sort of pulse modulation would probably help the jamming, too.

Heck, you could probably take the RF shielding off an appropriate-speed laptop and walk around with it as a first iteration of the design. I remember the old Apple ][+ used to jam channel 6 pretty well.

At the official FCC press release site

Why? Becase in most states owning your own cable box is against the law.

The FCC passed rules on this several years ago. The intent was to deregulate cable set-top box ownership in the same way telephone handset ownership was deregulated.

In Section 629 of the Communications Act. Congress directed the FCC to adopt rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices," such as cable set-top boxes, remote control units and other equipment, from commercial sources other than their cable providers. In 1998, the Commission adopted navigation device rules with the intent of improving consumer choice by fostering a competitive retail market for this equipment and said that it would monitor the development of the commercial availability of navigation devices and commence a proceeding in the year 2000 to review the effectiveness of the rules and consider any necessary changes.

I know it's offtopic, but things are running 80% offtopic so far...members of the NBC network. And this is before the recent deregulation that one of the FCC's own condemns. (pdf)

You mean like the 2.4GHz wireless devices? Wi-Fi? (part of the spectrum specifically left unlicensed by the FCC) See part 15: Radio Frequency devices.

It's sad that a local station is allowed to spew 50,000 watts of Country music into the air, overflowing into adjacent frequencies, but if someone broadcasts a stable 1,000-watt signal, they're (still) doing something against the law.

Me, bitter? Nah...

Lots and lots of religious outfits - Calvary Church is a big one. Overwhelming majority are churches. You get an idea of what the programming will be, I think.

Some "interesting" ones in California:

• THE LORAX SOCIETY
  
• RADIO EDUCATION ASSOCIATES (R.E.A)
  
• GLEN ELLEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
  
• ROCK 'N ROLL PRESERVATION SOCIETY (sounds like MY kind of religion)
  

Of course, searching for manufacturer code F9C, product ID C1R-1 on the FCC Product ID Search page returns little useful info regarding the exact freqs and modulation techniques in use. They asked for and received confidential status on the most interesting bits. Ugh.

PS - The FCC product ID search page can return all sorts of useful info on any product with an FCC ID. For instance, the info on the electronic key for my car returns schematics, data format info, etc. Sweet!

The key part is that you can get a shock when the phone rings. Very bad. That means the user is exposed to a low impedance connection to the phone line, which is illegal (FCC part 68). Sure, to feel the shock you need to have a return path to earth ground... and the circumstances spelled out make it seem highly improbably.

But consider that those 2 wires from the phone line are supposed to be galvanically isolated, via a transformer, optocoupler, high-voltage low-value capacitors, or some other safe barrier. Consumers are never supposed to be exposed to those bare telephone wires, which run on telephone poles with high voltage power lines overhead.

Sure, the 50 to 100 volt ring signal can give you a bit of a shock. But the real danger is that those telephone lines are not safe if there is a failure like a tree falls onto the lines or they're hit by lightning. That's why all telephones are required by the FCC to isolate those wires from the user.

The FCC also has strict requirements that all telephone equipment fail as an open circuit (equivilant to not taking the phone off the hook), even if the lines are hit with extreemly high voltage such as 12,000 volt power lines coming into contact with the phone line momentarily.

It was especially fun to watch when senator John McCain was reading some Clearchannel executive the riot act for suppressing free speech, even though he strongly disagreed with what the Dixie Chicks said himself.

"We are deeply disturbed that the Committee would attempt to force companies to divest assets simply because it decides to change the rules in the middle of the game. It is bad precedent and bad policy, and is precisely why the Fifth Amendment prohibits unlawful government takings. We certainly hope and expect the full Senate will reject this highly controversial and dangerous measure,"

The Media shows what people want to see

It happens to be that the majority of Americans don't want to see the anti-American retoric of Moore and other hard-core left-wingers.

When the Dixie Chicks got banned from many radio stations, do you think it was a US Gov't directive? Hardly. It was the intense demand from PEOPLE.

Technically you need a radio license with similar expensive fees to run most of the newer model "two-way radios" (read: Walkie Talkies) here in the US.

GMRS is very similar to FRS, but with more channels and higher power limits. It seems many people aren't aware that in the U.S. users of GMRS radios are supposed to be licensed at ~$80/5 years. Most users of cheap GMRS radios don't know/care that they are supposed to be periodicaly broadcasting their callsign, and these can't be used just like high-power FRS radios.

WPXQ778

England, for instance, has a Television Fee, which I hear is enforced with vans that drive around and somehow detect if you are running an unlicenced set. In the US, we charge various fees [PDF] for amateur short-range broadcast licenses. So there's kind of a precedent. I don't see why 802.11, in which you are actually broadcasting, should be any different.

So I'm sure the US isn't far behind. Your 900mhz wireless phone and certain halogen lamps that often interfere with wireless devices should have their own fee as soon as the right politicians read this thread.

Oh wait, politicians don't read slashdot. Phew.

Over the past few years the FCC has changed some of the rules and have simplified the code requirements. Check it out at http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/.

Telemarketing calls to mobile phones have been illegal for a long time, and consumers shouldn't have to worry about waiting until October 1st for scumbags to comply with existing law.

See FCC Complaint Page for information on how to file an FCC Form 475 online. I've done it several times, and it's satisfying to know how many fines I've precipitated. (There's a sidebar on that page that permits you to download a PDF version of their quarterly reports).

Cell phones use licensed spectrum, controlled by companies.

Spectrum is controlled and licensed by government agencies, in the the US, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC, Canada, Industry Canada, and the UK, the Radiocommunications Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.

The licensing comes from a tradition of making spectrum organized to prevent interference.

Anyone who tries to use WiFi in a densely populated area, especially over a large area (e.g. linking various sites in the same city) can tell you, intereference can be a problem within the license-free (aka license-exempt) frequency ranges .

Cell phones use licensed spectrum, controlled by companies.

Spectrum is controlled and licensed by government agencies, in the the US, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC, Canada, Industry Canada, and the UK, the Radiocommunications Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry.

The licensing comes from a tradition of making spectrum organized to prevent interference.

Anyone who tries to use WiFi in a densely populated area, especially over a large area (e.g. linking various sites in the same city) can tell you, intereference can be a problem within the license-free (aka license-exempt) frequency ranges .

So its true that the FCC is slow and will probably not do the right thing very often. But we should support those in the FCC that are trying and we should not give up the fight to bring Open Spectrum into reality just as Open Source has defied all odds to become a major force in the computer world.

So its true that the FCC is slow and will probably not do the right thing very often. But we should support those in the FCC that are trying and we should not give up the fight to bring Open Spectrum into reality just as Open Source has defied all odds to become a major force in the computer world.

You can obtain a restricted Technician Class license without knowing Morse -
FCC Amateur Operator Classes
If you want to use HF, you're probably going to need it because the channel allocations are so small.

They already regulate the frequencies: they go to the highest bidder
Apparently this is, if they are following their (at that point the FRC) charter via the Radio Act of 1927, in the "public interest." So when the people get together a some millions to buy and free part of the spectrum, then maybe we can start to think about ditching the telco's...

Federal money subsidizes all teachers. Perhaps I'm missing something. What's the difference between an AP and a non-AP teacher? In my days (not all that long ago) an AP course just meant there was a test at the end that could result in some college credit. The coursework was more difficult, but we're talking 100 level college material. It's not rocket science.

No, I don't see a benefit to it. I've always seen the push for technology in schools as a crutch for unmotivated students with behavioral problems, absentee parents, and "teachers who are little more than glorified baby-sitters".

I can't imagine why some people think every 1st grader should carry a laptop computer (I realize that's a whole different level than this discussion).

We've seen the last generation of people who can work a math problem by hand and write without a spell checker.

That's why we pay the Federal Subscriber Line Tax on telephone service.

Are there really still rural communities without any phone service?

Federal money subsidizes all teachers. Perhaps I'm missing something. What's the difference between an AP and a non-AP teacher? In my days (not all that long ago) an AP course just meant there was a test at the end that could result in some college credit. The coursework was more difficult, but we're talking 100 level college material. It's not rocket science.

No, I don't see a benefit to it. I've always seen the push for technology in schools as a crutch for unmotivated students with behavioral problems, absentee parents, and "teachers who are little more than glorified baby-sitters".

I can't imagine why some people think every 1st grader should carry a laptop computer (I realize that's a whole different level than this discussion).

We've seen the last generation of people who can work a math problem by hand and write without a spell checker.

That's why we pay the Federal Subscriber Line Tax on telephone service.

Are there really still rural communities without any phone service?

More information on the Universal Service Fund can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/welcome.h tml.

Short answer is "as long as you meet restrictions on delivery, you can qualify". The pie is getting larger, but the number of "diners" is increasing even faster. As scoove said, there are lots of people interested in chasing the "easy money".

I will agree to pay this extra fee if, and only if, two things happen:

1. Prior to charging the public any extra fees (taxes), the telcos, and all associated parties, publish a plan to distribute $12,999,999,900 [a]. of the estimated $13b that will be collected
No extra admin costs, no profit taking, no fund redirection. Each and every $$ collected must go towards the stated goals of the Universal Service Fund

2. All of the associated telco CEO's, and the FCC Chairman, agree to prison terms [b] not less than 6 months, and not greater than 24 months if it can be shown that they do not follow their published plan.
Prison terms are collective, in that if one falls, they all fall. Make them accountable to, and responsible for, each other

[a] Each Telco may keep $1 profit each for administering the dispersal of our funds.
[b]Federal PMITA prison, not 'house arrest'.

I was wondering if the FCC has considered opening up a portion of the FM and even AM radio spectrum for use by the public. It seems that radio has a need to have an allocation similar to that of public access on television. I realize that NPR affiliate stations fill part of this niche but really what I'm looking for is something where the programing is by the people for the people. This would be a chance for real community based radio broadcasts.

It seems that the people are in need of a public band on the FM spectrum to use for local & artistic uses. I know a lot of artists and local groups that could benefit from having a radio station run in a similar fashion to public access.

I'm not sure if the solution is one big organized station broadcasting with lots of power over the greater metro areas or instead many tiny low powered broadcasts that are more neighborhood specific. The FCC does have an initiative for a Low Power FM (LPFM) broadcast radio stations which could be used for educational non-commercial use. The range would be about 3 and half miles. Which could be great for neighborhood based programming. Trouble is that this initiative doesn't care if you get overpowered by other broadcasters. There are a lot of rules about getting permits and what your content is going to be though.

I'm not sure if these stations themselves would be managed by the FCC or by local government or by a new non profit that could work with government agencies. Ideally I see the service being run in a co-op style

If the purpose of the FCC is to manage a public resource then I don't see cutting off 10-15% of the public as good resource management. Consider that the EBS, the AMBER alert system, and other Broadcast news/law enforcement cooperation schemes (that just don't work as well without pictures) would become less effective to the point that it would cost lives.

Let them eat radio you say? Well, if this flies it's only a matter of time 'til the like of XM or Sirius "talk" some ousted FCC insider com "industry consultant" into suggesting that there may be a better use of the FM band than bandying about the latest Brittney Spears tune.

It also seems like a really bad idea to cut off 15,000,000 plus from PBS for any length of time, we're badly informed enough as is (take my post, please.).

P.S. Did we mod down the FCC?

Look at this chart from the FCC Radio Spectrum page.

Look at this chart from the FCC Radio Spectrum page.

Already done.

Low Power FM

However, I've had others who've told me that it takes 6 weeks for it to become effective. I tell them that the FCC won't take that long. (I'm sure some of them figure it's less than 6 weeks until 1 July, but I don't care - the violation took place last week, not in July, so it was a violation of existing law at that time.)

FCC Form 475 can be completed online; be sure to save the information manually elsewhere and note the serial number that the site spits back.

My most frequent abusers are the assholes down in Orlando who dump recordings at me to call a specific toll-free number and a bullshit "special code" like "Mickey453" to be able to sign up for a discounted trip to Orlando. They're going to be in for a rude shock when the FCC finally gets ahold of them; I'm sure all of the toll-free numbers will eventually be traced back to a specific boiler room, and the budget deficit will be reduced by a few hundred thousand dollars.

Cable prices went up and I (along with many others) don't have any choice in selecting a cable provider.

Companies like Clear Channel now own 1,200+ radio stations rather than the previous limit of 40.

Clear Channel stopped playing Dixie Chicks for making a political statement that management did not agree with.

Stop being a liberal or a conservative: be rational and exercise common sense.

First, ClearChannel isn't terribly affected by the changes, at least as they stand. The radio cap was left at 8, so they aren't going to be buying up a lot of new radio stations because of this ruling. The item that may give them more potential is the ability to buy newspapers that are in the same market as their radio stations, but radio diversity will not be affected by that.

Second, very few people have mentioned the unfortunate fact that something had to be done; the courts were prepared to throw the current cross-media ownership rules away completely on First Amendment grounds. Those who are informed on both sides of the issue acknowledge this fact. You may disagree with the changes that were made today, but please don't argue that the rules should have been left the same or even tightened, as they would have been dumped anyway.

Lastly, I don't believe that the changes are effective until 60 days after they have been published by the FCC, so there is still time to write your Representative/Senator to encourage them to overturn the ruling.

For a better review of what happened today, see the FCC's website with the commission's opinions.

Why didn't the local government activate the Emergency Alert System (EAS) broadcast that all radio and TV stations have by law? It is an automatic system that can insert information into broadcasts locally from Federal, state, or local officials, regardless of where the regular programming comes from, or whether there are any human beings running the station.

BTW, there are plenty of locally-owned radio stations that operate part of the day fully automated as well. How would they have reacted to this emergency? The same way.

Moreover, there are plenty of non-locally-owned radio and television stations that are staffed at all times, and can break into local programming with news flashes, even if most of their operations are centrally controlled.

Welcome to life under the Republicans.

Do you even know what you're talking about? The current FCC Chairman was appointed by Bill Clinton. The fact that Bush made him chairman doesn't change the fact that Clinton was the one who brought him on board in the first place.

The Commission here avowedly promises ... to initiate public debate on "whether, and how, broadcasters' public interest obligations can be refined to promote democracy and better educate the voting public."

"You don't govern just by polls and surveys. ... If all of our rulemaking was just a case of put them out and take a referendum, things would be a lot easier."

why do I have to pay for Disney, ESPN, and that crap to get Sci-Fi channel?

You don't. Federal law says that you can use Tier Buy-Through to get certain channels without having to get the whole platform. More Info [Warning! PDF!]

It's much easier to access information online. Technically, yes, I could get a copy by mail-order; the FCC seem to think this isn't good enough, however:

Under the FCC's detariffing rules, each long distance company is required to post a schedule of its rates, terms, and conditions on its Web site, if it has one. If you do not have access to the Internet, but want to use it to compare long distance prices, you can use the computer at your local library to get access. (From this FCC page.)

So, the FCC does now insist on tariff information being available online (unless the company has no web site; I suspect this is an unusual situation for a telco...)

I'm actually in the UK at present, too, which makes accessing non-online information rather more difficult. Anything online, however, is no harder than if I were still in Houston.

You can read about the FCC regulations regarding that here: Enhanced 911

Cell phone carriers need to be able to pinpoint the location of a call immediately by December 31, 2005.

Try going to the FCC's page and letting them know what you think... comments are being accepted here. (Select the third item down.)

Yeah - it's called the FCC and includes the process of type acceptance for a manufacturer to sell or even advertise radio equipment.

Anyone can purchase a transmitter or two-way radio and begin transmitting without a license on top of legit communications.

This is an old problem with an old solution. Do a 'net search for "Riley's Hammer" ...