Slashdot Mirror

It is simply incorrect to say that radio-frequency (RF) signals are incapable of causing damage irrespective of power. Your analysis is deeply flawed and ignores a wealth of literature that shows the effects of strong electromagnetic fields on humans and animals.

It is correct that what we're discussing here is nonionizing radiation. It is not correct that the deleterious effect of RF is related solely to the particle energy. Another significant factor is the degree to which the signal is absorbed by the human body. The human body is not transparent to RF; neither is it a conductor. It absorbs energy from an RF field, energy that is converted into heat. When the energy is sufficiently high, this heat can damage cells. This is particularly true in some areas of the body such as the eyes. And the body does not absorb energy at all frequencies equally. In fact, the FCC RF exposure regulations allow less power density at 30-300 MHz than they do at frequencies above that. (And, yes, power does matter, very much.) That's because the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the human body peaks at approximately 100 MHz.

Some useful background can be found on the FCC's RF Safety page.

you have no idea how much or what kind of RF energy your Walkman is putting out.

The SAR [specific absorption rate] is a value that corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed in the head of a user of a wireless handset. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg). Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Wireless Phones and Devices Available at FCC Web Site. [Link: here]

The FCC is in the process of providing consumers with information on human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless phones and other devices through our Web Site in a "user-friendly" way. At the present time, this information can be obtained if you have the FCC ID number of the phone or device and if it was produced and marketed within the last 1-2 years

The FCC ID number is usually shown somewhere on the case of the phone or device. In many cases, you will have to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the number proceed as follows. Go to the following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid.

you have no idea how much or what kind of RF energy your Walkman is putting out.

The SAR [specific absorption rate] is a value that corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed in the head of a user of a wireless handset. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg). Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Wireless Phones and Devices Available at FCC Web Site. [Link: here]

The FCC is in the process of providing consumers with information on human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless phones and other devices through our Web Site in a "user-friendly" way. At the present time, this information can be obtained if you have the FCC ID number of the phone or device and if it was produced and marketed within the last 1-2 years

The FCC ID number is usually shown somewhere on the case of the phone or device. In many cases, you will have to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the number proceed as follows. Go to the following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid.

With Wi-Fi networks in "hundreds of feet" and with E911 location requirement in "tens of feet" it will never work.

Phone carriers have to meet E911 / CALEA requirements in the next year.
(The order applies to wireline, cellular and broadband PCS telecommunications carriers.)

CALEA
FCC E911

A note about converting the coordinates for those of you not in the US (or not using mapquest):

I was able to get coordinates for my girlfriend's blog in Tokyo but had to convert from degrees-minutes-seconds to the decimal format GeoURL wants. I used this converter.

Noticed this while digging around the links. Doubtful that any sensible person would give their SSN over the phone to a stranger ... but people do continue to watch the Anna Nicole Smith show, so who knows?

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketsca m.html

The FCC regulates radio frequency transmissions, states and localities may not. See Part 15 of the FCC Regs which regulate low power (= 100 mW RF output) devices. Your local governmental busybodies may (or may not) regulate your business license / zoning / etc. as in any other business situation. Call your attorney for an appointment (duh).

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

If you feel that your local radio or television station is not serving the local public interest, why not let the FCC know?

Or, if you are really curious about the ownership of the station, whether the station has made any citizen's agreements which are not being honored, or to read view comments from other concerned citizens, ask for a copy of the station's Public Inspection File. You can inspect it at their station, or pay them for photocopies and they pay to mail it to you.

If you feel that the radio or televison program selection is too similar and bland, why not apply for a low-power FM station license? Unfortunately, LPFM stations are available to noncommercial educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations, but are not available to individuals or for commercial operations. However, [c]urrent broadcast licensees with interests in other media (broadcast or newspapers) are not eligible to obtain LPFM stations. Find a local existing educational entity and help them to put up a LPFM station (at a frequency which does not interfere with existing commercial stations). Also, the station must be non-commercial, but appeals for donations are acceptable.

It may be possible to reach further than the documented 3.5 miles with the maximum of 100 Watts output with strategic placement of the broadcast antenna -- I was able to hear a college station with 100 Watts at least 20 miles away with a standard vehicle radio.

AFAIK, the FCC's jurisdiction is over the airwaves. Why do they have to approve anything dealing with cable?

The second 'C' is for 'Communications.' For example, telephone service, which is over cable. See the FCC's Web Site to see what their jurisdiction is over.

• Congress to Block Imaginary Internet Tax Bill from the Washington Post
• E-mail Rumor Completely Untrue from the United States Postal Service
• E-mail Tax Hoax from the US Department of Energy's Computer Incident Advisory Capability
• No Consumer Per-Minute Charges to Access ISPs from the Federal Communications Commission

I hate to say this, but the idea of doing this in the Phillipines (especially the imposition by a non-Phillipine organization) makes the the referenced newspaper article sound like a hoax too.

1. Google Cache of State Do Not Call lists which has been relaced by FTC List of State Registries
   
   
2. The DMA's list Useful cache versus the Real soon now revised list
   

require[s] that [telemarketer's] do-not-call request records must be maintained for 10 years after a request is
made.

The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the
establishment and operation of a single national database to compile
a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to
receiving telephone solicitations,

"Do Not Call Law"(Alaska's Black Dot Law)
AS 45.50.475 prohibits telephone solicitation of persons identified in a telephone directory as not wishing to receive telephone solicitations. These telephone customers have a "black dot" by their name in the directory. The statute also requires local telephone companies to provide a list of "black dot" customers to telephone solicitors who request one.
For a small fee, your local telephone company will identify your residential listing in your telephone directory with a

• black dot.
• This informs telephone solicitors that you do not want to receive telephone solicitations.

1. Google Cache of State Do Not Call lists which has been relaced by FTC List of State Registries
   
   
2. The DMA's list Useful cache versus the Real soon now revised list
   

require[s] that [telemarketer's] do-not-call request records must be maintained for 10 years after a request is
made.

The regulations required by paragraph (2) may require the
establishment and operation of a single national database to compile
a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to
receiving telephone solicitations,

"Do Not Call Law"(Alaska's Black Dot Law)
AS 45.50.475 prohibits telephone solicitation of persons identified in a telephone directory as not wishing to receive telephone solicitations. These telephone customers have a "black dot" by their name in the directory. The statute also requires local telephone companies to provide a list of "black dot" customers to telephone solicitors who request one.
For a small fee, your local telephone company will identify your residential listing in your telephone directory with a

• black dot.
• This informs telephone solicitors that you do not want to receive telephone solicitations.

ok we are both wrong, the period the lists are supposed to be called is 10 years not 5, and they have to call you twice in a 12 month period after you have requested to be removed for it to be actionable. For more info see the fcc's page on do not call lists Here I guess if they call you twice after you have requested but before they add you to their list it could be actionable. I personally would be lenient as it does take time for them to do the database add and then re-filter their call lists.

I've paid my contributions to The EFF and I've submitted my public comments to the FCC and I urge other Slashdot readers to do so as well.

Actually, being used to reading their Daily Digest, I just know it's available in all three. Personally, I tend to read the PDFs because they look the best and load fastest (even though I have a Windows PC with Office).

-Alison

Go to http://www.fcc.gov/ and look at their documentation page. It's all MSWord and PDF files listed.

-Rick

From the instructions page:

ECFS only accepts filings in proceedings with docket and rulemaking numbers. ECFS is therefore unable to acccept filings in non-docketed proceedings.

Can someone explain this so our comments are not disreguarded?

How about trying PDF or text if you don't want the word version. In this case, the story submitter messed up, not the FCC.

-Alison

How about trying PDF or text if you don't want the word version. In this case, the story submitter messed up, not the FCC.

-Alison

If you change the last three characters of the URL to pdf, you will see the pdf version, likewise with txt. I'm not sure why the story submitter chose to link to the word version.

Every official release from the FCC is in all three formats.

-Alison

If you change the last three characters of the URL to pdf, you will see the pdf version, likewise with txt. I'm not sure why the story submitter chose to link to the word version.

Every official release from the FCC is in all three formats.

-Alison

Most countries have taken this approach. In America, the FCC has taken on a role not merely of allocating frequencies but of controlling, insofar as they constitutionally can, what travels over them. The absurd limits on the 2.4GHz band, created in part not to help foster private telecommunications but to make microwave ovens legal, mean that communications over these bands have to be ultra-local in scale and have lead to conflicts between household and office equipment that should not exist. When my microwave oven is on, despite the heavy shielding, my Seimens Gigaset phone's reception is audibly impaired. I gather a common complaint is that 2.4GHz phones tend to interfere with 802.11* wireless networks too. And all because of artificial scarcity.

In the UK, until the mid-eighties, it was virtually impossible to use any kind of wireless device without a licence. An opening up made portable telephones and similar devices possible, but innovation was hampered for the longest time because of this.

A genuine opening up - with some restrictions for some bands to reduce the chances of a destructive tragedy of the commons, but otherwise an unrestricted unrestrained environement - of large amounts of the spectrum, possibly insofar as practically possible going for the long term goal of opening up 90% of the airwaves, would create opportunities both for localised and long distance communications to a degree currently unthought of. Private, community owned, relay networks could create sane and affordable telephone provision, last mile provision for Internet type networks would become easier and could work on a broadcast rather than point-to-point model. Devices designed to operate within homes could work without a maze of unintelligable cabling - your TV and receiver could receive digital signals directly from a DVD player anywhere in the house, as long as the signals followed agreed upon standards. It'd be ironic to see "plug and play" type functionality built into every household media device to free itself from the use of plugs and sockets.

At the moment, the government and FCC has no incentive whatsoever to do any of this. Governments have recently (last 20 years or so) seen rationing the electromagnetic spectum as an opportunity to raise stealth taxes. In an era where everyone looks at their income tax bills and blames the government, but looks at their cellphone bills and blames the cellphone companies, it makes sense for them to lighten the load on income taxes by moving to indirect taxation such as that generated by auctioning spectrum. This is a disasterous policy as not merely does it undermine the innovation that could be fostered in an environment of free spectrum, but it constitutes a form of regressive taxation as certain types of communication becomes more and more important and necessary because of network effects. I've known employers that refuse to employ people for certain types of job who will not supply a working cellphone number.

The spectrum will not open itself. The government needs to act, and act in the public interest, not what it can get away with to raise funds on-the-sly. Unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to the FCC, your congressman or senator. Tell them that innovation and freedom is important to you, and that it's important that the airwaves be opened up to foster a genuinely innovative and progressive culture where communications are unhampered by artificial scarcities, monopolies, and restraints. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done into creating a large ISM band, but if these efforts fail, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed wireless technologies, to get around the bottlenecks the current ISM bands impose. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how opening up the airwaves can help all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on his or her policy on opening up the airwaves.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Is there any reason they should be using proprietary formats for plain text?

Is there any reason that everyone reading this Slashdot article couldn't take a few minutes to send a complaint to one or more of their commissioners?

Contacting the FCC

-Rick

"If my parents didn't live where the HOA frowned upon it, I'd tell them to get DirecTV."

Tell them anyway. The FCC has ruled that homeowners' associations cannot stop people from installing satellite dishes of 1 m diameter or less (among other things, like wireless broadband antennae.)

HOA have no legal right to prevent you from installing a small dish if you own the property. Now there are a few other limiting factors, like having a mounting location with a clear line of sight to the satellite, but an HOA by law is not allowed to prevent this.

"Satellite Consumer Bill of Rights, a regulation released by the FCC on August 6, 1996. This regulation PREEMPTS area zoning ordinances and Homeowner Association covenants and restrictions on DBS dish antennas. This rule was required by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act."

Link to FCC fact sheet about this subject.
FCC Fact Sheet

Thank you for the docket number.

I just made a few edits to the Digital Consumer letter, and cut & paste it into the official FCC comment submittal form.

That way it's not just another Digital Consumer spam.

And the best part...it took less time than posting this comment.

So ya'll get to it.

Here's your link in a nice non-pdf format.

this on the other hand is the real thing - and it's in plain text as well (due to the native_or_pdf flag)

Interestingly, Google has (as of yet) no mention [google.com] of the phrase "where we are all artist/waiters."

Google indexes web pages only once a month. So getting no hits on google does not mean a thing. Lelyveld's comments are here .
That said, it is highly irresponsible of the editors to post the article without a link to the lawyer's writing but instead a mailto: to his email.

Hey Phil,

In reference to your email archived here
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513391182
regarding your remarks about DigitalConsumer:

[quote] They represent nothing more than a free website.[/quote]
vast majority of websites are free. CNN is a free website for example. So is NY Times and BBC. Heck, even the FCC is a free website. If by free you mean non-profit, I can't see what there is too demean about that. Of course, I see the point you're trying to get at. You'd like everything to be corporate/controlled by big business and nuts to the little guy, or in your words "sustainable". If all REAL PEOPLE wanted what you want, why does Disney et al have to fight so hard (and underhandedly) to get their legislation passed?

[quote] We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters [/quote]
so...the site is run by 2 .com millionaires but they want everyone to become artists/waiters? Can you explain this bit of logic to me? The difference between a waiter and a millionaire .... seems vast. Almost as vast as the difference bewteen an artist with soul and a lawyer without.

DON'T SELL OUT TO LAWYERS WHO NEGLECT TO MENTION THEY REPRESENT VAST CORPORATE INTERESTS!

For those of you who are puzzled and don't know what email the post is referring to, please check this out

Check it out.

This required a little digging (on a site linked to from EFF's Broadcast Flag site), but should've been linked to by the submitter.

proof.

Here's the text:

DON'T SELL OUT TO MILLIONAIRES CLAIMING TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE

! DigitalConsumer.com is two dot.com millionaires claiming to represent "the people." They represent nothing more than a free website. We need the Broadcast Flag in place so that REAL PEOPLE who spend their lives creating content can work in a sustainable business environment where they can get paid for their work. We do not want to live in the world DigitalConsumer.dot is trying to create for us, where we are all artist/waiters.

Please SUPPORT the broadcast flag effort.

Phil Lelyveld

DIRECT LINK with 02-230 already filled in. Just type in your name, address, comment, and send!

Here's my comment:

Mandating a "broadcast flag" will only serve to impede a transition
to Digital Television because consumers simply refuse to buy
rights management crippled products. The Audio Home Recording
Act mandated that all Digital Audio Tape devices must enforce
rights management. Consumers simply didn't buy them. The
technology is virtually nonexistent today. Claims that companies
will withhold content are nothing but empty blackmail threats.
Analog signals are already subject to the same "danger" of unlimited
distribution of perfect copies after a simple digital conversion. The
broadcast flag is inherently flawed technologically, it can never
achieve the goal of preventing copyright infringement. It is not in
the public interest. It will inconvenience the public and interfere
with legitimate activity. It will interfere with innovation. The
broadcast flag also becomes entirely nonsensical when you consider
that television signals will be increasingly be received on computers
and processed in software.
The FCC is entrusted with managing the public airwaves in the
public interest. The recommendations of the Broadcast Protection
Discussion Group simply do not reflect the public interest.

-

I'm just about to ditch AT&T Digital Cable, because their default box where I live has had its S-Video and digital audio connectors removed. Probably saved them $10 per unit. I recently begged them to let me either rent or buy a full version of the same model box from them. When I mentioned the 1996 law which says customers have a choice in 3rd-party set top boxes, I received their response: --- We are in the early stages of Beta testing converters with S-video and Dolby digital 5.1 outputs in select regions for the eventual launch throughout our enterprise. We do not yet have a time table for when these will be available for lease in your area. According to the information provided at the FCC's website, http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98 116.pdf, subscribers have the right to attach any compatible navigation device to a multichannel video programming system as long as the equipment does not provide the unauthorized reception of services. If you wish to register a converter you have purchased with us, please contact our Cable Television Customer Care Group at 1-888-633-4266 for assistance. You are allowed to purchase your own converter, we will not support it, nor guarantee that it will receive all the channels that you subscribe to. Also there have been cases of people buying converters on line that are stolen from other regions, it is our policy to report any such incidents, so choose whom you purchase your converter from wisely. If you have any future questions or problems, please feel free to email us again or contact our Technical Support line for further assistance. We are here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When replying to this address, please include this message as well as all previous correspondence regarding this issue.

Go here to get directly to the form you need.

Looking at this , this , and this , someone has provided a form letter. And, since that first link's address is listed as "1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA," I wonder if we can guess who it is?

Looking at this , this , and this , someone has provided a form letter. And, since that first link's address is listed as "1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA," I wonder if we can guess who it is?

Looking at this , this , and this , someone has provided a form letter. And, since that first link's address is listed as "1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA," I wonder if we can guess who it is?

Looking at this , this , and this , someone has provided a form letter. And, since that first link's address is listed as "1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA," I wonder if we can guess who it is?

From this page you can either type in a comment on the web page, or attach a document (PDF, DOC, TXT, and a few other formats).

You need to include the proceeding number, which is 02-231.

The link given in the comment I'm replying to is the FAQ for the comments page but I think most /.'ers don't need no steenkin' faq on filling out a web form.

From this page you can either type in a comment on the web page, or attach a document (PDF, DOC, TXT, and a few other formats).

You need to include the proceeding number, which is 02-231.

The link given in the comment I'm replying to is the FAQ for the comments page but I think most /.'ers don't need no steenkin' faq on filling out a web form.

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html