Slashdot Mirror

RJ stands for Registered Jack (check out the glossary at the end of this FCC document).

BNC stands for Bayonet Neill Concelman

"Call the Cable/DSL providers selfish if you like, but you CAN get a telephone to every home in America."
Have you ever herad of Universal Service? That site is a bit full of guv'ment speak, but it means that everybody paying for phone service subsidizes phone service for the places where it is unprofitable for the telcos.

With the FCC trying to establish low-power radio stations (at one point, I'm not sure whether it's been quashed by ClearChannel or not)

Low-power FM radio is dead, but I cannot state conclusively as to whether Clear Channel Communications was responsible. Applications for low-power FM radio must be filed within a five-day window. The FCC hasn't opened any such windows in over a year and doesn't plan to open any more windows for filing low-power FM radio license applications in the foreseeable future.

With the FCC trying to establish low-power radio stations (at one point, I'm not sure whether it's been quashed by ClearChannel or not)

Low-power FM radio is dead, but I cannot state conclusively as to whether Clear Channel Communications was responsible. Applications for low-power FM radio must be filed within a five-day window. The FCC hasn't opened any such windows in over a year and doesn't plan to open any more windows for filing low-power FM radio license applications in the foreseeable future.

There's an FCC fact sheet on telemarketing that mentions that it's illegal for autodialer or recorded phones (which covers practically all telemarketing these days) to contact cell phones or any other phone for which the recipient is charged.

The fine was $11,000 per single fax for 489 junk faxes that citizens sent to the FCC with requests that the FCC investigate and enforce the law.

95 of those junk faxes were mine. The FCC ignored the other 105 junk faxes I sent them, because they were transmitted more than a year ago.

Here's the original FCC citation

The FCC is an executive branch agency, so Bush, altimately, oversees it, not Congress. Now, since electricity was discovered after our constitution was drafted, there isn't anything in it about regulating broadcasting, so the FCC gets it. Now, here's the bit of the constitution that makes Congress think they have all-powerful control over the market place, Article I Section 8 of the constitution:

The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...

So, Congress does have the power, but the FCC does too. If you want, cover all ends, like I am going to do. Write your Representatives, write the prez and write the FCC. Let them know you will not buy a DTV with this sort of crap built into it. This does not support a free market place. It does nothing but create more control over your daily lives.

Here's how to contact the FCC:

http://www.fcc.gov/
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Phone: 888-CALL-FCC (225-5322)
fccinfo@fcc.gov

The FCC is an executive branch agency, so Bush, altimately, oversees it, not Congress. Now, since electricity was discovered after our constitution was drafted, there isn't anything in it about regulating broadcasting, so the FCC gets it. Now, here's the bit of the constitution that makes Congress think they have all-powerful control over the market place, Article I Section 8 of the constitution:

The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...

So, Congress does have the power, but the FCC does too. If you want, cover all ends, like I am going to do. Write your Representatives, write the prez and write the FCC. Let them know you will not buy a DTV with this sort of crap built into it. This does not support a free market place. It does nothing but create more control over your daily lives.

Here's how to contact the FCC:

http://www.fcc.gov/
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
Phone: 888-CALL-FCC (225-5322)
fccinfo@fcc.gov

That link seems to be broken. Is the new one: FCC-02-231A1.txt ?

At least they're dropping the proprietary PDF format. :)

You can also file comments electronically at

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

(For other things like cellphones, the ratio of wavelength to body-part size could be critical to efficiency of heating, so frequency can be critical, and is so frequently.)

"FAQs About Water and Steam" (The International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam)
"Sometimes you may hear that the microwaves are interacting with a resonant frequency of the water molecule (like a radio gets tuned to a frequency), but that is actually not the case. Anything with a dipole moment will absorb microwave radiation, so microwave ovens will also heat fats and sugars, for example. "
FAQ or cache
Has link to How Microwaves works sites with more links.

The wavelength of the microwaves needs to be comparable to the size of the object which then gets an induced alternating electrical field. That alternating field drives the molecules as little syncronous induction-motor rotors. Heat being just molecular kinetic energy, it is felt as, and cooks, as, any other heat source, but inside-out.

. It is because of the frequency of the microwave photon.

NO! If you check standard texts, you will find that microwave oven performance is largely insensitive to variation in frequency, and indeed may vary within the ISM band. Domestic microwave ovens are at about 2.5GHz in the Industrial Scientific and Medical (ISM) Band out of historical coincidence (existing allocation, existing equipment) only. Note that has a wavelength of 12cm, a bit long for a molecular resonance. This is very close to the 2.4G part-15 data and part-97 ham bands. The water and water-vapor absorption is quite weak, being on the flank of the 22GHz weak resonance. Any competent microwave design book, whether for data, radio-astronomy, or diathermy, will have the tables and charts. See for example,

"resonance lines of water [are] at 22 GHz and a very very strong line at 183 GHz. "
CEOS or cache

You can see in the diagram there that absorption does decrease from 1G to 2.5G, it's nothing like a resonance, it's considered an edge of the low "window". In the 10GHz range, we consider clouds to be lenses not opaque absorbers, and that's higher up that peak's flank.

Under the terms of my ARS radio license, I know I have to abide by federal human/radio safety standards (which will prevent me from anywhere near our full authorized power on 2.4G any time soon! Just thinking about 5W on 10G with feed and dish gain is enough to worry about.). The scarier thing is those who don't know about them are supposed to too.

The Federal standard for human / radio absorption safety is available from FCC OET RF Safety Home page ; their Consumer Facts watered down version is Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields Federal Communications Commission

73 de radio n1vux

(For other things like cellphones, the ratio of wavelength to body-part size could be critical to efficiency of heating, so frequency can be critical, and is so frequently.)

"FAQs About Water and Steam" (The International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam)
"Sometimes you may hear that the microwaves are interacting with a resonant frequency of the water molecule (like a radio gets tuned to a frequency), but that is actually not the case. Anything with a dipole moment will absorb microwave radiation, so microwave ovens will also heat fats and sugars, for example. "
FAQ or cache
Has link to How Microwaves works sites with more links.

The wavelength of the microwaves needs to be comparable to the size of the object which then gets an induced alternating electrical field. That alternating field drives the molecules as little syncronous induction-motor rotors. Heat being just molecular kinetic energy, it is felt as, and cooks, as, any other heat source, but inside-out.

. It is because of the frequency of the microwave photon.

NO! If you check standard texts, you will find that microwave oven performance is largely insensitive to variation in frequency, and indeed may vary within the ISM band. Domestic microwave ovens are at about 2.5GHz in the Industrial Scientific and Medical (ISM) Band out of historical coincidence (existing allocation, existing equipment) only. Note that has a wavelength of 12cm, a bit long for a molecular resonance. This is very close to the 2.4G part-15 data and part-97 ham bands. The water and water-vapor absorption is quite weak, being on the flank of the 22GHz weak resonance. Any competent microwave design book, whether for data, radio-astronomy, or diathermy, will have the tables and charts. See for example,

"resonance lines of water [are] at 22 GHz and a very very strong line at 183 GHz. "
CEOS or cache

You can see in the diagram there that absorption does decrease from 1G to 2.5G, it's nothing like a resonance, it's considered an edge of the low "window". In the 10GHz range, we consider clouds to be lenses not opaque absorbers, and that's higher up that peak's flank.

Under the terms of my ARS radio license, I know I have to abide by federal human/radio safety standards (which will prevent me from anywhere near our full authorized power on 2.4G any time soon! Just thinking about 5W on 10G with feed and dish gain is enough to worry about.). The scarier thing is those who don't know about them are supposed to too.

The Federal standard for human / radio absorption safety is available from FCC OET RF Safety Home page ; their Consumer Facts watered down version is Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields Federal Communications Commission

73 de radio n1vux

... isn't the "rampant piracy" Red Herring they've been feeding the press and their tame politicians in Washington, D.C., it is the possibility that anyone who does have a story to tell will be able to make a quality movie with nothing more than their home PC and a little time.

Suddenly we don't need studios, we don't need actors, and we don't need tens or hundreds of millions to produce a blockbuster movie. And with the internet to distribute the material on, we don't need their distribution network of cinemas either.

The most important talent they rely on is not skill in computer imagery, but skill in telling a compelling story using all of the tools of the visual idiom. This is what most people don't have, and it is an essential element to producing good film.

Like musicians using home-studios to record music, without talent this will go largely unusued, or, more likely, there will be a lot of less-than-good material out there ... a state of affairs the mimicks the current, cartel-controlled situation rather well, actually. Even if only 1 in 100,000 has the story telling talent to put together a good film, that would amount to 2,800 potent competitors to the media cartels.

Musicians really don't need million dollar studios anymore to produce an album, and while this means a lot of junk is pressed onto CD, it also means a lot of musicians are able to produce and market their music outside of the RIAA's cartel, through mp3.com and elsewhere. Hollywood doesn't fear the napstersization of their medium nearly as much as they fear the mp3.com-ization of it, and competition with a few thousand talented people not on their payroll.

This, I think, is why we are experiencing such an onslought of attempts through legislation and back door regulation via the FCC and a little known "standards" body called the BPDG to take both the internet, and general computers, out of the hands of private citizens.

It isn't about 'piracy,' it is about competition, and they don't fear competition from 'everybody' so much as they fear general access to the tools, which means those talented persons not a part of the cartels would be able to compete for viewership and marketshare on a level playing field with the big studios.

And that is something they simply cannot abide.

I'm more concerned with the second FCC initiative to address content providers' (i.e. the movie industry's) concerns about the potential to abuse this new technology to pirate content. No doubt these measure will lead to security feature creep to protect more than than just broad-/cable-/satellite-cast cotent and include other digital content.

Setting the issues of government-sponsored copy protection, didn't this "piracy" issue raise it's ugly head in the 1970s with the advent of consumer VCR technology? Didn't anyone learn anything about how this is a non-issue, especially when compared to the increased revenue opportunities that new technology made available to content creators and providers?

...anactofgod...

The FCC has a real Chicken and Egg problem. They mandated that all TV stations stop broadcasting analog signals by 2006. Then congress came along and said stations couldn't stop transmitting analog signals if fewer than 85% of the TV households were able to recieve the digital signal. 85% is an impossibly high number, and congress knows it. Cable TV and VCR's don't even have 85% market penetration so how could DTV have it in only 8 years?

Of course the FCC knows that any TV can view DTV signals with a converter -- they even put it in their FAQ but no one is going to buy a $200 piece of equipment to see what they are already watching down converted from DTV to analog. This also ignores whatever equipment people would need to actually recieve the DTV signal in the first place.

So, the FCC knows people aren't going to invest in the equipment until the analog signal goes away. And the analog signal won't go away until people have the equipment. The FCC has no choice but what they are doing. The only other alternatives would be to force consumers to buy converters (or give them away). The FCC already forced broadcasters to send the DTV signal, and they won't send both signals forever.

It will still take a long while for the tuners to get up tp the 85% level (even though that represents households and not sets) and I predict that number will eventually be lowered. Doing it this way will take much longer than the FCC originaly hoped, since it will first start with large TV's and then gradually all TV's, but it will happen eventually. And once the analog signal is turned off the number will climb rapidly. You can say now that you just won't buy a new TV, but eventually you'll need a DTV tuner to see anything at all. Much like the V-chip, DTV is something you will eventually have whether you want it or not.

nothing was said about broadcast flags, does this mean there wont be any? Or that it's still under debate? or did the FCC actually say "screw you" to the MPAA?

Actually, the broadcast flag was one of the other items on the agenda:


BUREAU: MEDIA
TITLE: Digital Broadcast Copy Protection
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning digital broadcast copy protection.


It's item #1, but the agenda was followed in exactly reverse order for some reason. A RealVideo recording of the stream is available, but will probably only be up for 6 months, so archive it now.

Any member of the public can comment on proposed rules. It's possible the stream of mail they get is quite a bit smaller than Congresspeople, so this push (by Hollings) of this issue to the FCC may actually be to cyber-activists advantage. Instructions on making a comment are on the FCC website.

nothing was said about broadcast flags, does this mean there wont be any? Or that it's still under debate? or did the FCC actually say "screw you" to the MPAA?

Actually, the broadcast flag was one of the other items on the agenda:


BUREAU: MEDIA
TITLE: Digital Broadcast Copy Protection
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning digital broadcast copy protection.


It's item #1, but the agenda was followed in exactly reverse order for some reason. A RealVideo recording of the stream is available, but will probably only be up for 6 months, so archive it now.

Any member of the public can comment on proposed rules. It's possible the stream of mail they get is quite a bit smaller than Congresspeople, so this push (by Hollings) of this issue to the FCC may actually be to cyber-activists advantage. Instructions on making a comment are on the FCC website.

nothing was said about broadcast flags, does this mean there wont be any? Or that it's still under debate? or did the FCC actually say "screw you" to the MPAA?

Actually, the broadcast flag was one of the other items on the agenda:


BUREAU: MEDIA
TITLE: Digital Broadcast Copy Protection
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning digital broadcast copy protection.


It's item #1, but the agenda was followed in exactly reverse order for some reason. A RealVideo recording of the stream is available, but will probably only be up for 6 months, so archive it now.

Any member of the public can comment on proposed rules. It's possible the stream of mail they get is quite a bit smaller than Congresspeople, so this push (by Hollings) of this issue to the FCC may actually be to cyber-activists advantage. Instructions on making a comment are on the FCC website.

The answer is... Citizens who care about enforcing the law and who have taken the time to send the FCC copies of their illegal fax ads are responsible. The FCC can only levy fines based on complaints from recipients. It's nice having the government enforcing the law on behalf of consumers and fax machine owners.

For instance, 95 of the 489 faxes were sent the the FCC by... me, resulting in just over $1 million of the $5.4 million fine. Highly gratifying, if they ever collect, of course.

For all the gory details, see

Press Release
FCC Notice of Apparent Liability
Gory details
More gory details
YMGD

The second of these URLs is quite a read: Allegations of Perjury, Intimidation, and Deception.

Gotta go. While typing this, I've just received another godamned junk fax at 1:30 in the morning in my home office.

The answer is... Citizens who care about enforcing the law and who have taken the time to send the FCC copies of their illegal fax ads are responsible. The FCC can only levy fines based on complaints from recipients. It's nice having the government enforcing the law on behalf of consumers and fax machine owners.

For instance, 95 of the 489 faxes were sent the the FCC by... me, resulting in just over $1 million of the $5.4 million fine. Highly gratifying, if they ever collect, of course.

For all the gory details, see

Press Release
FCC Notice of Apparent Liability
Gory details
More gory details
YMGD

The second of these URLs is quite a read: Allegations of Perjury, Intimidation, and Deception.

Gotta go. While typing this, I've just received another godamned junk fax at 1:30 in the morning in my home office.

The answer is... Citizens who care about enforcing the law and who have taken the time to send the FCC copies of their illegal fax ads are responsible. The FCC can only levy fines based on complaints from recipients. It's nice having the government enforcing the law on behalf of consumers and fax machine owners.

For instance, 95 of the 489 faxes were sent the the FCC by... me, resulting in just over $1 million of the $5.4 million fine. Highly gratifying, if they ever collect, of course.

For all the gory details, see

Press Release
FCC Notice of Apparent Liability
Gory details
More gory details
YMGD

The second of these URLs is quite a read: Allegations of Perjury, Intimidation, and Deception.

Gotta go. While typing this, I've just received another godamned junk fax at 1:30 in the morning in my home office.

The answer is... Citizens who care about enforcing the law and who have taken the time to send the FCC copies of their illegal fax ads are responsible. The FCC can only levy fines based on complaints from recipients. It's nice having the government enforcing the law on behalf of consumers and fax machine owners.

For instance, 95 of the 489 faxes were sent the the FCC by... me, resulting in just over $1 million of the $5.4 million fine. Highly gratifying, if they ever collect, of course.

For all the gory details, see

Press Release
FCC Notice of Apparent Liability
Gory details
More gory details
YMGD

The second of these URLs is quite a read: Allegations of Perjury, Intimidation, and Deception.

Gotta go. While typing this, I've just received another godamned junk fax at 1:30 in the morning in my home office.

The answer is... Citizens who care about enforcing the law and who have taken the time to send the FCC copies of their illegal fax ads are responsible. The FCC can only levy fines based on complaints from recipients. It's nice having the government enforcing the law on behalf of consumers and fax machine owners.

For instance, 95 of the 489 faxes were sent the the FCC by... me, resulting in just over $1 million of the $5.4 million fine. Highly gratifying, if they ever collect, of course.

For all the gory details, see

Press Release
FCC Notice of Apparent Liability
Gory details
More gory details
YMGD

The second of these URLs is quite a read: Allegations of Perjury, Intimidation, and Deception.

Gotta go. While typing this, I've just received another godamned junk fax at 1:30 in the morning in my home office.

Many local zoning ordinances prohibit big (6~8 ft) satellite dishes.

If you are actually talking about government zoning and not covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC AKA deed restrictions), you're in luck. Get an FCC amateur radio license (anyone can get one for the $10 and a very basic understanding of electronics) and tell folks its a ham antenna. Don't mention TV reception.

The FCC's PRB-1 (here and here) is a limited preemption of zoning ordinances. Basically, local government must reasonably accommodate folks when it comes to antennas. A C-band dish in your back yard would certainly be reasonable.

(You may also want to bluff with Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which says that folks must allow dishes. It generally only applies to dishes less than a meter but some people won't read the entire document if you have a good poker face.)

Is it possible to use many smaller dishes to achieve the same effect as one big dish in picking up C-band transmissions?

Yes. Hams have beeing builing arrays for years to do moon bounce and whatnot. You can find some over the top pictures here. However, the infrastructure to create such a monster is substantial and is likely to run afoul of the same local ordinances you're trying to work around.

Overall, I don't see the point in using a big dish for TV anymore and an array of smaller dishes to act like a bigger dish seems pointless.

InitZero (k4mls)

Don't get your panties in a knot...

I was under the impression the FCC wanted to mandate a switch to digital TV just for the heck of it. As I just learned from this page (among others), replacing analog broadcast TV with digital broadcast TV will free up a lot of spectrum. (Analog uses 54 to 806 MHz, not sure what digital would use)

According to SonyEricsson filings to the FCC, the hardware of the T68i is identical to that of the T68 - it's just a new cover, new back, and different coloured LEDs behind the keypad.

The rest of the differences are in the software. In most markets that T68i is available in, SonyEricsson have made a software update available for the T68 - effectively transforming it into a T68i. The software upgrade has been available in most of Europe and Asia for a few months now. Down here in Australia, we're still waiting for it and the T68i to be officially released.

There are currently two different models of snap-on cameras ("CommuniCam") for these phones.

The original CommuniCam is the MCA-10, which works with the original T68 and a few of Ericsson's older phones.

The new model is the the MCA-20, which currently works only with the T68i, afaik.

The older model has an inbuilt viewfinder, and most of the 'brains' are within the camera itself - the phone is little more than a data device. The newer model has no inbuilt viewfinder - you do the viewfinding on the phone screen itself. More of the processing has been moved into the phone; so the phone now stores the images internally, and can use them for MMS (multimedia messaging), screen backgrounds, caller number presentation, etc.

The 'offical' target for analog switch off is 2006. Almost everyone now agrees this date is unlikely to be met, simply because of the reluctance for consumers to adopt DTV at the schedule that the FCC made up for them. It took from 1964 to 1985 for Britian to eliminate 405 line television - in an era when TV equipment was unreliable and with short lifespans. I would be suprised if analog TV could be replaced any faster than that.

"unclean hands"

Which if I remember right is largely a common law matter set through a whole laundry list of precedent, much of which leads back to decisions on constitutional issues.

[You can still sue and win is] Not a constitutional issue.

Originates from due process, which is a constitutional issue.

I would like to see a case where it said [that you can put up to a 1-meter dish or antenna]

Actually, this isn't constitutional at all. Its FCC rules. They trump everything but the constitution and acts of congress with respect to installation of an antenna up to 1 meter in diameter for the purpose of receiving audio/visual signals where that installation is in a location of your exclusive control. You can even do it if you rent, and your landlord doesn't have the right to say no. In fact, if they want to challenge your installation, they're only permitted to take it to the FCC. The local legal system is specifically barred from ruling on the matter.

They did that to help the Satellite TV industry get off the ground. Look it up!

In the more general case, property use covenants are challenged all the time, with very mixed results.

Non-compete clauses in business contracts aren't usually given that kind of scrutiny.

I'm unable to think of a non-compete clause in a contract which does not impact an individual's employment prospects but does impact that individual's rights. Perhaps you could offer an example?

not aware of any [contract] being thrown out because the clause was unconstitutional.

Of course not. The body of law that supports it is challenged instead, and if challenged successfully then the contract clause is voided based on the revised body of law.

So, most of this isn't directly constitutional, but to say that there is "no constitutional limit" is "not strictly true."

Interesting. If you go to the FCC's approval record, you can get internal photos of the device.

Can anyone with a Nokia 8260 pop it open to see if it's the came circuit board of an 8260 or other commonly-available cellphone?

Does anyone know if the circuit board pictured can be fabbed for $30 a pop? (Then again, without an LCD display, maybe it can be made cheaper than a Nokia 8260. Come to think of it, I don't see anything on the circuit board that looks like it was designed to hook into an LCD, so maybe they really do have their own design this time.)

Can anyone in the know on cellfone design give a yea or nay on whether the FCC filing looks legit?

Interesting. If you go to the FCC's approval record, you can get internal photos of the device.

Can anyone with a Nokia 8260 pop it open to see if it's the came circuit board of an 8260 or other commonly-available cellphone?

Does anyone know if the circuit board pictured can be fabbed for $30 a pop? (Then again, without an LCD display, maybe it can be made cheaper than a Nokia 8260. Come to think of it, I don't see anything on the circuit board that looks like it was designed to hook into an LCD, so maybe they really do have their own design this time.)

Can anyone in the know on cellfone design give a yea or nay on whether the FCC filing looks legit?

How could CNN print this crap without checking into the history of this company?

Perhaps because the Hop-on phone just recieved FCC approval and therefore must now exist as a working product?

Here is the page on the FCC website on the approval of the device.

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/oet/ forms/reports/Search_Form.hts?fetchfrom=0&form=Gen eric_Search&mode=edit&show_records=50&grantee_code =QHO&product_code=HPN1600

The relevent PhoneScoop page is here: http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?id=179

Photos, a users guide, and other information is avalible.

One caveat: I ordered one of these back in about February, and I only just got it a few weeks ago! I'm happy though because the US Government Printing Office gave me an automatic discount when it was slow. I must say the couple of quarters or so really helped defray that horrible $3.00 cost.

Anyway, I'm home for summer and can't wait to get back up to school to see what it's like (it was shipped there, since I didn't count on such a long wait).

After all, how many people voted for any of the members of the FCC?

If they can do it, why can't we? Here's a link to E-mail FCC Chairman Powell. As always if you're stupid (or intend to say things like "Hollings c4n suXX0r m4h c0xx0r" which is stupid if you're too stupid to know better) just don't write. What needs to happen is well-written letters explaining why the idea of a broadcast flag won't work and will only be anti-consumer.

A little aside:

David Farber, the moderator of a popular online mailing list on technology with recipients all over the globe, envisions a time when he'll have to cut back on his postings for fear of lawsuits elsewhere.

Many countries do not value free speech the way the United States does, nor do they give speakers as much leeway in defending libel lawsuits. So mailing list mavens like Farber need to be concerned about whether items they post might violate a law somewhere.

"We live in a world where we communicate worldwide and we travel worldwide," Farber said. "If I violate some Australian law and then land in Sydney, do they throw me in jail?"

While the article makes no mention of it, David Farber is no mere ordinary citizen, he's the Chief Technologist of the FCC (yes, this is the same David Farber -- the photo in the CNN article is him)

Yes, the FCC does not regulate the Internet itself. Yet, if anyone is in a position to do something about such questionable tactics on a government policy level, it's Mr. Farber...

I just wanted to post some further information about this, after I submitted the story to slashdot, I wanted to do some more research.

First, some quotes from the press release from FCC (I'm going to try and look up the full detail of the ruling, so far I'm having trouble finding it. I called FCC and asked about the ruling, and they can't find FCC-02-214 document thats mentioned at the bottom of the press release, strange, they claim it hasn't been uploaded to thier document managing system yet). Gonna stop in at the library and see if I can find it in the federal register.

"Opt-Out- Use of CPNI by carriers or disclosure to their affiliated entities providing communications-related services, as well as third-party agents and joint venture partners provided providing communications-related services, requires a customers' knowing consent in the form of notice and opt-out approval. Carriers have the choice to use either opt-in or opt-out in this context."

Emphasis added
Out of all the "big news" web sites, the only one that even has a small story is msnbc.

US West contends the CPNI Order "violates the First Amendment by requiring that carriers secure prior affirmative consents from customers before using individually-identifiable customer information to speak with their customers on an individualized basis about services beyond the 'categories' of telecommunications services to which they currently subscribe." US West's Opening Brief at 22. In other words, US West suggests the CPNI Order unduly limits its ability to engage in commercial speech with its existing customers regarding new products and services it may offer.

US West also claims the CPNI Order "restricts the ability of carriers to share and use CPNI internally to have different divisions, affiliates, and personnel within the same carrier communicate information to each other (i.e., to speak to each other), absent a prior affirmative consent from the customer."

For example, petitioner could use CPNI obtained through the provision of local service to market other local service products, but not cellular services. Moreover, if the customer subscribes to both local and long-distance services, petitioner could use the CPNI to market either service and could exchange the CPNI between affiliates that provide such services, but petitioner could still not use the CPNI to market cellular services.

We vacate the FCC's CPNI Order, concluding that the FCC failed to adequately consider the constitutional ramifications of the regulations interpreting 222 and that the regulations violate the First Amendment.

In 1999, This court vacated the FCC's previous opt-in only policy in this ruling. This means that the FCC used to have an opt-in only policy but the court forced the FCC to change it in favor of commercial interests.

I confess that my first reaction was to get pissed at the FCC, but it ain't that simple.

A couple of interesting facts about the 10th circuit appeals case:

Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Professor of Bush v. Gore 2000 election fame, was the lead attorney for the Telecoms against the FCC.

The Supreme Court failed to grant this case cert., meaning that they refused to consider the appeal to this ruling. It'll be interesting to see what happens if this new FCC ruling gets challenged in court and then whether the Supreme Court will take on the CPNI privacy issue then. That's when the final interpretation will be determined.

In the meantime, I too encourage everyone who wants the opt-in policy back to contact your Senators and Representatives.

Taken from Chairman Powell's public statement:
"But we conclude, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that under the court's constitutional analysis, companies may satisfy the somewhat less stringent requirement of giving consumers the chance to "opt-out" of intracompany communications-related use of CPNI.(1)

(1) The court instructed the Commission to consider an opt-out strategy, which the court concluded was "an obvious and substantially less restrictive alternative" to opt-in. U.S. West v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1238 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1213 (2000)"

Contact the Court of Appeals and complain. Also, contact your local representative.

-Lucas

Powell Michael K CM-CH (202) 418-1000

My thought exactly. The fee schedule for AM/FM stations is here (pdf, it's on page 66), and is based on the number of listeners. Seems like it'd be a reasonable workaround, if your "broadcast station" is in a low-population area so the cost would be low. The catch of course, is the expense of the broadcast equipment, and the application fee.

My thought exactly. The fee schedule for AM/FM stations is here (pdf, it's on page 66), and is based on the number of listeners. Seems like it'd be a reasonable workaround, if your "broadcast station" is in a low-population area so the cost would be low. The catch of course, is the expense of the broadcast equipment, and the application fee.

What a great idea; do you shoot the postman when he delivers junk mail?

As this handy search page can tell you, Time Warner doesn't own a single TV station. So tell me, how exactly do you plan to make the big, bad TV stations "pay" for their right to make money?

Get a clue.

>>Futhermore im certain that this technology violates part 15 of the dcc rules of operation.

>>"(1) This device may not cause harmful interference and (2) this device must accept any interference recieved, including interference that may cause undesired operation"

How are you "certain"? Do you have a legal background? I don't, but I did some further digging: it appears that even if the FCC regulations you names would apply (they don't; I'll come back to that), the FCC doesn't have the right to regulate materials such as this. US Code Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 302a ("Devices which interfere with radio reception") gives the FCC power to regulate "governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications".

This paneling cannot emit radio freqency radiation.

For a similar reasion, the FCC itself states that the regulations you cited do not apply:
"This Part [Part 15] sets out the regulations under which an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator may be operated without an indivudial license" yadda yadda yadda. (You can read the regulations if you think I may be cutting out important stuff; I'm not).

All of the definitions of radiators include the provision that it must generate radio frequency energy. This paneling does not.

>>You can be sued for bringing large magnets into datacenters... Its all illegal
Illegal under what law? Do you have to destroy data?

Chill out, didn't realize it was you all three times this was brought up. Don't attack me for repeating myself when you are doing the same.

The law you quote says:

"No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. "

Here:
Link
In a Declaratory Ruling adopted today, the FCC concluded that cable modem service is properly classified as an interstate information service and is therefore subject to FCC jurisdiction. The FCC determined that cable modem service is not a "cable service" as defined by the Communications Act. The FCC also said that cable modem service does not contain a separate "telecommunications service" offering and therefore is not subject to common carrier regulation.

It amazes me that a judge can order big tobacco to pay a smoker $15m for damages related to smoking, yet people couldn't sue their teleco. Ok, so I'm not so amazed. It's the fucked up patchwork of American laws that simply baffles me sometimes.

Frankly, it pisses me off that the Telecom Act hasn't forced the powers that be into ONE FLAT FUCKING RATE FOR ALL PHONE CALLS. Local, long distance, Caller ID, Three-Way, Anonymous Block, and the whole slew of features on telephone lines should be included standard. Not $10 here, and $5 there, depending on the feature, and where you are located in the good ol US of A.

It's 2002 now.

ISPs can give users UNLIMITED SERVICE for one low monthly fee. Why can't voice calls be the same? Why aren't they now?

Oh wait, I know why. Greed. You already knew the answer too, I'm sure.

But guess what kids, the Teleco Act of 1996 has helped ruin not only OUR telecommunications, but OUR airwaves. The airwaves don't belong to ClearChannel. They belong to us CITIZENS. That's why the FCC was created, right? To protect and look after the use of OUR electromagnetic spectrum? Yeah. That's precisely why they were founded. Are they following their mandate as of late? NO.

The FCC should have been the one to be on top of this regional/local teleco monopoly bullshit a long time ago. They broke up AT&T's stranglehold on LD a long time ago, and that did drive prices down. On a local level, however... nothing has changed.

They also tried to campaign against low-power community radio stations.

Unfortunately, that campaign worked, to a point. After the initial five landgrabs, the FCC hasn't opened any "application filing windows" for low-power FM band radio broadcast stations in over a year.

Like that time they lobbied to prevent microtransmitters?

I know a lot of people give NPR's director flack about that policy. _I_ do not like that policy. However, if you step back one foot it makes (a little) sense.

In big cities, NPR's local transmitter is generally a megastation. At my home, the two stations broadcast at 50,000 and 100,000 watts respectively. When I heard about that decision, it seemed bloody-minded. Why would an organization which broadcasts on those sort of transmitters give a rats about 10 watt community stations?

Then I left Seattle and started travelling in the United States.

The station where I am this week is broadcasting at a power of 2000 watts. At that power level, a 10 watt station on the periphery of your broadcast area can cut a pretty good-sized swatch out of your listening area through interference.

(if someone can find a tutorial on-line which explains the distance-squared rule and the roughly 10-to-1 rule on radiated broadcast power effectively jamming FM broadcast, I'd appreciate it).

Summary: From a freedom-of-speech point of view, it doesn't make sense. From an engineering standpoint, it does.

Like that time they lobbied to prevent microtransmitters?

I know a lot of people give NPR's director flack about that policy. _I_ do not like that policy. However, if you step back one foot it makes (a little) sense.

In big cities, NPR's local transmitter is generally a megastation. At my home, the two stations broadcast at 50,000 and 100,000 watts respectively. When I heard about that decision, it seemed bloody-minded. Why would an organization which broadcasts on those sort of transmitters give a rats about 10 watt community stations?

Then I left Seattle and started travelling in the United States.

The station where I am this week is broadcasting at a power of 2000 watts. At that power level, a 10 watt station on the periphery of your broadcast area can cut a pretty good-sized swatch out of your listening area through interference.

(if someone can find a tutorial on-line which explains the distance-squared rule and the roughly 10-to-1 rule on radiated broadcast power effectively jamming FM broadcast, I'd appreciate it).

Summary: From a freedom-of-speech point of view, it doesn't make sense. From an engineering standpoint, it does.