Slashdot Mirror

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.

I'm not familiar with how the FCC auctions off the EM spectrum.

Check this out: FCC Auction Site.

One of the things we have to look forward to once broadcast television has gone fully digital is the give-back of the VHF TV spectrum.

I think you have it backwards - TV stations are leaving the upper UHF (channels 52-69) for the "Core TV Channels" 2-51.

New DTV allocations are being made in the "Core Channels", and then at the great analog turn-off in 2007, channels 52-69 will be cleared and returned to the FCC.

The lower 700 MHz Auction begins tommorow!. This is for UHF channels 52-59.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but that troll just got modded to 3.

Perhaps everyone should look here:

ftp://www.fcc.gov/pub/Bureaus/Wireless/OPP/mists.h tml

This page says

WHO ARE THE ECONOMISTS AT THE FCC?
Chief Economist, FCC
Joseph Farrell

Deputy Chief Economist, FCC
Chief Economist, Common Carrier Bureau
Gregory Rosston

There are 6 Bureau Chief Economists

Jim Coltharp
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

Jerry Duvall
Competition Division

Doug Galbi
International Bureau

Dan Hodes
Cables Services Bureau

Tom Spavins
Competition Division

Doug Webbink
Mass Media Bureau

Close, FCC controls / owns for US. NAMPA reports to them. Can you use the word "contract".

Just look and see:
Look here
The following was pulled from a notice

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) exclusive jurisdiction over the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) in the United States, but permits the Commission to delegate any portion of that jurisdiction to state regulatory commissions or other entities. The Commission, recognizing that state commissions are uniquely positioned to understand local conditions and what effect new area codes will have on those conditions, has authorized the states to resolve many matters involving the implementation of new area codes, subject to the Commission's guidelines and rules governing administration of telephone numbers.

192 or VBR encoded with maximum quality with the latest Lame encoder

that is, LAME 3.92, lame --preset r3mix

rivals the professional hardware based mpeg2 layer 3 encoder we have here at work.

No schmidt. "MPEG-2 layer 3" often means MP3 at 22 kHz, which would cut out all frequencies above 10.5 kHz (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem plus the transition band of a real filter).

(Background for mods: Some people claim to use P2P to discover music not approved by Clear Channel, the Microsoft of radio broadcasting. Many have suggested independent FM radio as an alternative.)

as anyone can get a LPFM license

Not anymore. The FCC has effectively closed the low-power FM license program to new applicants: "Applications for construction permits for new LPFM stations or major changes to LPFM permittees or licensees cannot be filed until the next application filing window period. We cannot advise as to when the next application filing window might be." No filing windows have been opened in the past year.

192 or VBR encoded with maximum quality with the latest Lame encoder

that is, LAME 3.92, lame --preset r3mix

rivals the professional hardware based mpeg2 layer 3 encoder we have here at work.

No schmidt. "MPEG-2 layer 3" often means MP3 at 22 kHz, which would cut out all frequencies above 10.5 kHz (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem plus the transition band of a real filter).

(Background for mods: Some people claim to use P2P to discover music not approved by Clear Channel, the Microsoft of radio broadcasting. Many have suggested independent FM radio as an alternative.)

as anyone can get a LPFM license

Not anymore. The FCC has effectively closed the low-power FM license program to new applicants: "Applications for construction permits for new LPFM stations or major changes to LPFM permittees or licensees cannot be filed until the next application filing window period. We cannot advise as to when the next application filing window might be." No filing windows have been opened in the past year.

I did a little looking and found an interesting article on the FCC web site about the Data Quality Act and their proposed implementation of it.

Apparently the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) is responsible for administering this new law under the Paperwork Reduction Act. and each agency is responsible to tell the OMB how they are going to implement it.

Sort of presumes that I could tell you were a ham operator from your comment.

unless you included the info in your sig line, this was not immediately apparent. Also sometimes explanations are given for the benefit of spectators.

Yes transparency of various things varies depending on frequency. But this does not negate the info on bandwidth. The technical difficulty in maintaining a higher precision signal in the giga hertz and high ranges is important as well.

The Microwave and the infrared spectrums have a wide area of overlap. While the FCC has regulations covering up to about 100 gigahertz, it is always good to keep perspective by noting that visible light has a frequency of 300,000 gigahertz.

It seems clear many posts are off the mark.

There were two main subjects. Software radio and how networking affects spectrum capacity. Note that this has little or nothing to do with UWB (ultrawideband).

(1) Software radio: This technology is still expensive, but costs are dropping rapidly. Normal radios are hardware designed for specific tasks, work at a specific frequency band, use fixed modulation schemes, and fixed energy levels. A software radio does all the work with a CPU. Just load up a new program and all aspects of the device are upgradeable. One device can work as a digital or analog cellphone using US or european protocall, or any future protocall. It can be reprogramed as a CB, TV, Walkie-talkie, HAM radio, beeper, intercom, 802.11, or bluetooth device. Heck, you could leave it on your dashboard as a police-radar detector. New protocalls can be downloaded on-the-fly. You can then upgrade the system without replacing $billions of obsolete hardware. Bandwidth can also be dynamically allocated were it is needed. Much radio capacity currently goes to waste - it's like reserving 15% of your bandwith for browsing, 10% for streaming audio, 20% for video, 20% for games, 5% for email, 15% for FTP, etc. Current regulations are an obstacle to software radio.

(2) Second was an analysis of the obsolete paradigm of treating radio spectrum as "property". This was based on a fundamental result that data capacity is equal to bandwidth, and that bandwidth is limited. The more devices in the system, the less data capacity each device can get. Try to use 1000 cellphones (or wireless laptops) in one place and the system dies. This is a result of analyzing a simple point-to-point or broadcast system. New systems working as a network throw the old rules out the window. With the proper protocalls each device added to the system can increase total capacity enough so that with more devices in the system, each device still gets the same data capacity. Data capacity per device is no longer a limited resource. It is also based on an obsolete interpertation of interference. In current radios, when two signals at the same frequency arrive at the same place there is interference and the information is lost. This is merely a flaw of current designs. Using "smart" antennas multiple signals at the same frequence can be received without interference. It turns out that multi-path "interference" can actually increases capacity, as does motion. It also allows lower power levels to be used. These results fly in the face of traditional electrical engineering, but they are solid physics/mathematical results. (Watch the presentaion before you argue that I'm wrong.)

In the next serveral years we may be in for a radical change in the way radio is used and regulated. These changes will enable "always-on" wearable networked computing.

-

those stations wouldn't be popular if the music wasn't popular (for whatever reasons that music is...

The music is popular because Clear Channel makes it popular.

the fact that those mom-and-pop stations voluntarily sold their stations

How are you sure it was as voluntary as you claim? How are you sure they weren't somehow blackmailed into it?

It means those people who feel they are disenfranchised need to start their own radio stations, non-commercial

The low-power FM program you speak of has been, in effect, discontinued. From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/getstat.html: "Applications for construction permits for new LPFM stations or major changes to LPFM permittees or licensees cannot be filed until the next application filing window period. We cannot advise as to when the next application filing window might be." This is government-speak for "We cannot guarantee that there will be a next application filing window." According to this list of prior window dates, there hasn't been a new filing window in nearly a year.

or commercial

If you are commercial, you and your advertisers will be harassed by Clear Channel, as coyote-san wrote.

those stations wouldn't be popular if the music wasn't popular (for whatever reasons that music is...

The music is popular because Clear Channel makes it popular.

the fact that those mom-and-pop stations voluntarily sold their stations

How are you sure it was as voluntary as you claim? How are you sure they weren't somehow blackmailed into it?

It means those people who feel they are disenfranchised need to start their own radio stations, non-commercial

The low-power FM program you speak of has been, in effect, discontinued. From http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/getstat.html: "Applications for construction permits for new LPFM stations or major changes to LPFM permittees or licensees cannot be filed until the next application filing window period. We cannot advise as to when the next application filing window might be." This is government-speak for "We cannot guarantee that there will be a next application filing window." According to this list of prior window dates, there hasn't been a new filing window in nearly a year.

or commercial

If you are commercial, you and your advertisers will be harassed by Clear Channel, as coyote-san wrote.

For more info on U.S. call letters, see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/statid.html. If you loathe what's available on radio now, start your own station. The FCC Media burea has some information on how to do that, see http://www.fcc.gov/mb. Yes, that's nontrivial.

For more info on U.S. call letters, see http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/statid.html. If you loathe what's available on radio now, start your own station. The FCC Media burea has some information on how to do that, see http://www.fcc.gov/mb. Yes, that's nontrivial.

The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 swept aside many of the old ownership limits, and ignited the business like a firecracker. Small owners started selling, and larger companies began feverishly merging. Six years later, radio is a big business, with publicly traded companies now dominating ownership of the nation's 11,400 commercial stations.

The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 swept aside many of the old ownership limits, and ignited the business like a firecracker. Small owners started selling, and larger companies began feverishly merging. Six years later, radio is a big business, with publicly traded companies now dominating ownership of the nation's 11,400 commercial stations.

By Tim Pozar - pozar@lns.com
for the Bay Area Wireless User Group

1. Background
   1. Introduction

      With the unlicensed use of 802.11b radio Ethernet devices in the Industrial, Scientific and Medical band that has been set aside for such use, there is confusion of what is allowed or limited by the Federal Communication Commissions Rules and Regulations. This paper is meant to help guide folks through the cryptic nature of these rules.

      This paper does not cover other legal issues of using these devices such as FCC type-acceptance, Radio Frequency Radiation issues (ie. ANSI RFR levels) or Appropiate Use Policies (AUPs) of ISPs you may connect to.

   2. What is the FCC's involvement in this mess?

      The FCC is a regulation body whose purpose was defined in the Communications Act of 1934 as:

      "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter."

      The FCC, with the Act of 1934, was empowered to regulate wire and wireless communications. Wired communications regulation was needed to monitor and regulate monopolies. Wireless regulation is needed as the spectrum is finite. The FCC is the "traffic cop" to ensure that communications is not interfered with.

2. Part 15 of the Rules and Regulations

   Almost every bit of spectrum is regulated by the FCC with the exception of extreamly high or low frequency spectrum and bands managed by the Intergovernmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) for the military and other goverment orginizations, by licensing operators of radio equipment. The part of the FCC's rules that cover the operation of equipment that does not need a license is (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

   • (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi."

3. Lets dissect this section...
   • Part 15.247(b)(1) defines the maximum power that an intentional radiator can put out as 1 watt.

   • Part 15.247(b)(2) doesn't apply as it is covering devices in the 902-928 MHz band and 802.11b devices are in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band.

   • Part 15.247(b)(3) covers the need for limiting the amount of radiation the "intentional radiator" can emit with "directional gain" antennas. It says that in general (with an exception coming up) that if the gain of the antenna system is more than 6 dBi, the intentional radiator needs to be turned down to keep the emission at the 1 watt maximum plus 6 dBi (36 dBm or 4 watts EIRP). The FCC encorages the use of directional antennas. With that they give you 6 dBi more power for not poluting the rest of your space with radiation that is not needed to do what you need to do.

   • Part 15.247(b)(3)(i) covers the need for limiting the amount of radiation the "intentional radiator" can emit running "fixed, point-to-point" with "directional gain" antennas. This means that the transmitter is mounted not on a moblie device and is talking to one other transmitter.

Do we need to turn down the transmitter?

1. Omni-directional or Point to Multi-point paths...

   15.247(b)(3) makes the assumption that you are running a point to multi-point network much like an Apple Airport or Cisco/Aironet AP box with a number of computers connecting to the network. They may be randomly surrounding the access point so you are not using a directional antenna.

   But what does the FCC mean when they limit the "intentional radiator" to one watt?

   This is a critical sticking point in understanding what the FCC is talking about. There is some question of what an "intentional radiator" consists of and what and where exactly is 1 watt measured. Unfortunatly if you just look at these poorly written rules you will not understand what the FCC means here. One has to look a bit deeper to the "Report and Order" and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" that generated this section of the rules.

   Things get a little clearer when we read this sentence in paragraph 4 of the Report and Order...

   • "The current regulations limit spread spectrum systems to a maximum peak transmitter output power of one watt. When operating at that power level, the maximum directional gain of the associated antenna may not exceed 6 dBi, resulting in a maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of four watts, i.e., 6 dBW."
   With the old rules they are refering to the "intentional radiator" as a whole with a directional antenna can't exceed 6 dBw or 36 dBm and the antenna gain can't be more than 6 dBI. The transmitter can be up to one watt.

   In order to know if we are legal or if we need to turn down the transmitter we need to know the gain of your "intentional radiator". Let's say your access point actually puts out 1 watt of power and you want to put an omni-directiona antenna on it that has a gain of 5 dBi such as the ORiNOCO Range Extender Antenna".

   We know the gain of the antenna, the transmitter but we also need to know the loss of the transmission line going to the antenna as this attenuats the transmitter output power going into the antenna. Looking up the attenuation of a common coax cable such as RG-8 on an coax attenuation table we find that at 2.4 GHz we have 16 dB of loss with 100 feet of cable. With a 10 foot cable your loss is about 1.6 dB. So your new "intentional radiator" will be radiating transmitter power output plus antenna gain minus coax loss or (30dBm + 5 dBi - 1.6 db) or 33.4 dBm or 2.2 watts EIRP.

   Since this is a non-directional antenna you are limited to 1 watt EIRP or 30 dBm. The transmitter will need to be turned down 3.4 dB to 26.6 dBm or about 0.45 watts (450 mW) to get you back to 30 dBm or 1 watt EIRP.

   If you think about this you may ask, "why add an omni-directional gain antenna it if I already was at 30 dBm?" You would be correct that it would be a waste of time. But if you had something like an Apple Airport that will only put out 15 dBm or 30 mW then you can add an omni-directional gain antenna and it will extend your "roaming" area. In fact you can add up to 15 dB of gain with an omni-directional antenna before you need to attenuate the output of the Wavelan card in the Airport.

2. Use a directional antenna and get more power - or - this is where the Rules get even more hard to follow...

   Part 15.247(b)(3) actually gives you a free 6 dBi if you use a directional antenna your "intentional radiator". How do the do this? Only if the gain of the antenna is over 6 dBi will the Feds want you to roll back the EIRP of your "intentional radiator". You don't have to do it right at 1 watt EIRP. When would you do this? Say if you have an access point in the corner of a building and it needs to aim back into the work area. You don't want an omni-directional antenna as about 75% of the power would be going out the windows. Why not use a directional to keep the signal in the building and penetrate through the walls better? If we have antenna gain of about 12 dBi and in this case the antenna is a directional antenna. With the transmitter putting out 30 dBm and the coax has 1.6 dB of loss we have an "intentional radiator" that is putting out (30 dBm + 12 dBi - 1.6 dB) or 40.4 dBm or just over 10 watts EIRP. Since the antenna gain is 12 dBi and we have to reduce the power of this "intentional radiator" 1 db for every db we go over 6 dBi of the antenna we would have to roll the power back to 34.4 dBm or 2.2 watts EIRP (40.4 dBm - (12 dBi - 6 dBi)). Well, it is slightly better than 30 dBm or 1 watt EIRP.

3. Fixed, point-to-point paths and get even more power...

   There is another exception to this section of the FCC rules. Part 15.247(b)(3)(i) covers systems that are "fixed, point-to-point". That means this path only has two transmitters involved and they are bolted down by never moving their locations. Automobiles may not apply. An example would be if you have an access point and a user that is a couple blocks or even tens of miles away that you want to connect to.

   This exception is more lenient as you only need to turn down the "intentional radiator" 1 dB for every 3 dB of signal over the 6 dBi of the antenna system. The FCC does this as it knows that these paths will not likely not be omni directional on each end and will have less of a chance to interfere with others as well as the need to span some long distances.

   Lets look at an example using the same antenna, transmission line and transmitter as above. Without turning anything down we had an "intentional radiator" that was producing 40 dBm or 10 watts EIRP. Since the antenna gain is 12 dBi and we have to reduce the power of this "intentional radiator" 1 db for every 3 db we go over 6 dBi of antenna gain we would have to roll the power back to 38.4 dBm or 7 watts EIRP (40.4 - (12 dBi - 6 dBi) / 3).

Real world examples...

1. Omnidirectional Point-to-Multi-point...

2. Directional Point-to-Multi-point...

3. Directional Fixed, Point-to-Point...

   Recently I put up a short path between myself and a neighbor about 2 blocks away (.2 miles). I have an Apple Airport that uses the Lucent Wavelan Silver card that puts out 30 mW or about 15 dBm. The antennas have a gain of 24 dBi with a transmission line loss of about 6 db. This gives me an "intentional radiator" power of 48 dBi. Since the antenna gain is 18 dBi over the 6 dBi that the FCC gives you and since it is a fixed, point-to-point link I would have to limit my

   [...]

   Since the little Wavelan card only puts out 15 dBm, I am legal as far as part 15.247 goes.

Quicky Definitions...

1. deciBels - dB

   dB, or one tenth of a Bel, is a unit of mesurment that looks at the ratio of one value to another. Gain or loss can be measured in dB. The dB scale is an exponential scale using the formula log(ratio)*10. This means that 3 dB is about twice the power, 10 dB is 10 times the power, 13 dB is about 20 times the power and 20 dB is 100 times the power.

2. dBm

   dBm is deciBels referenced to a value of 1 miliWatt of power. Power over or under 1mW would be plus or minus dBm respectively.

   If you have a transmitter that produces 1 watt of power that would be 1000 times more than 1 mW so that converts to 30 dBm.

3. dBW

   dBW is deciBels referenced to a value of 1 Watt of power. Power over or under 1 Watt would be plus or minus dBW respectively.

4. Effective Isotropic Radiated Power - EIRP

   Effective Isotropic Radiated Power defines the gain of an antenna over an "isotropic antenna" that would radiate equally in all directions.

   An example would be a light bulb. A lightbulb is designed to radiate light equally well in all directions, except the direction that the base is in.

   If you have an antenna that radiates better in one direction than another, it would likely have gain in this direction. The amount of gain would be shown as "dBi" or dB gain (or loss) over an "isotropic antenna".

   To further our example above, if we have a light bulb and put it in front of a mirror, we would be taking the light radiation that would be heading in the direction of the mirror and reflecting it back in the same direction of the light not directed towards the mirror. Hence you would have twice the amount of light going in the direction of the refelction. As we are doubling the amount of light, we have a "gain" of 3dB or 3dBi.

By Tim Pozar - pozar@lns.com
for the Bay Area Wireless User Group

1. Background
   1. Introduction

      With the unlicensed use of 802.11b radio Ethernet devices in the Industrial, Scientific and Medical band that has been set aside for such use, there is confusion of what is allowed or limited by the Federal Communication Commissions Rules and Regulations. This paper is meant to help guide folks through the cryptic nature of these rules.

      This paper does not cover other legal issues of using these devices such as FCC type-acceptance, Radio Frequency Radiation issues (ie. ANSI RFR levels) or Appropiate Use Policies (AUPs) of ISPs you may connect to.

   2. What is the FCC's involvement in this mess?

      The FCC is a regulation body whose purpose was defined in the Communications Act of 1934 as:

      "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter."

      The FCC, with the Act of 1934, was empowered to regulate wire and wireless communications. Wired communications regulation was needed to monitor and regulate monopolies. Wireless regulation is needed as the spectrum is finite. The FCC is the "traffic cop" to ensure that communications is not interfered with.

2. Part 15 of the Rules and Regulations

   Almost every bit of spectrum is regulated by the FCC with the exception of extreamly high or low frequency spectrum and bands managed by the Intergovernmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) for the military and other goverment orginizations, by licensing operators of radio equipment. The part of the FCC's rules that cover the operation of equipment that does not need a license is (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

   • (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi."

3. Lets dissect this section...
   • Part 15.247(b)(1) defines the maximum power that an intentional radiator can put out as 1 watt.

   • Part 15.247(b)(2) doesn't apply as it is covering devices in the 902-928 MHz band and 802.11b devices are in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band.

   • Part 15.247(b)(3) covers the need for limiting the amount of radiation the "intentional radiator" can emit with "directional gain" antennas. It says that in general (with an exception coming up) that if the gain of the antenna system is more than 6 dBi, the intentional radiator needs to be turned down to keep the emission at the 1 watt maximum plus 6 dBi (36 dBm or 4 watts EIRP). The FCC encorages the use of directional antennas. With that they give you 6 dBi more power for not poluting the rest of your space with radiation that is not needed to do what you need to do.

   • Part 15.247(b)(3)(i) covers the need for limiting the amount of radiation the "intentional radiator" can emit running "fixed, point-to-point" with "directional gain" antennas. This means that the transmitter is mounted not on a moblie device and is talking to one other transmitter.

Do we need to turn down the transmitter?

1. Omni-directional or Point to Multi-point paths...

   15.247(b)(3) makes the assumption that you are running a point to multi-point network much like an Apple Airport or Cisco/Aironet AP box with a number of computers connecting to the network. They may be randomly surrounding the access point so you are not using a directional antenna.

   But what does the FCC mean when they limit the "intentional radiator" to one watt?

   This is a critical sticking point in understanding what the FCC is talking about. There is some question of what an "intentional radiator" consists of and what and where exactly is 1 watt measured. Unfortunatly if you just look at these poorly written rules you will not understand what the FCC means here. One has to look a bit deeper to the "Report and Order" and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" that generated this section of the rules.

   Things get a little clearer when we read this sentence in paragraph 4 of the Report and Order...

   • "The current regulations limit spread spectrum systems to a maximum peak transmitter output power of one watt. When operating at that power level, the maximum directional gain of the associated antenna may not exceed 6 dBi, resulting in a maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of four watts, i.e., 6 dBW."
   With the old rules they are refering to the "intentional radiator" as a whole with a directional antenna can't exceed 6 dBw or 36 dBm and the antenna gain can't be more than 6 dBI. The transmitter can be up to one watt.

   In order to know if we are legal or if we need to turn down the transmitter we need to know the gain of your "intentional radiator". Let's say your access point actually puts out 1 watt of power and you want to put an omni-directiona antenna on it that has a gain of 5 dBi such as the ORiNOCO Range Extender Antenna".

   We know the gain of the antenna, the transmitter but we also need to know the loss of the transmission line going to the antenna as this attenuats the transmitter output power going into the antenna. Looking up the attenuation of a common coax cable such as RG-8 on an coax attenuation table we find that at 2.4 GHz we have 16 dB of loss with 100 feet of cable. With a 10 foot cable your loss is about 1.6 dB. So your new "intentional radiator" will be radiating transmitter power output plus antenna gain minus coax loss or (30dBm + 5 dBi - 1.6 db) or 33.4 dBm or 2.2 watts EIRP.

   Since this is a non-directional antenna you are limited to 1 watt EIRP or 30 dBm. The transmitter will need to be turned down 3.4 dB to 26.6 dBm or about 0.45 watts (450 mW) to get you back to 30 dBm or 1 watt EIRP.

   If you think about this you may ask, "why add an omni-directional gain antenna it if I already was at 30 dBm?" You would be correct that it would be a waste of time. But if you had something like an Apple Airport that will only put out 15 dBm or 30 mW then you can add an omni-directional gain antenna and it will extend your "roaming" area. In fact you can add up to 15 dB of gain with an omni-directional antenna before you need to attenuate the output of the Wavelan card in the Airport.

2. Use a directional antenna and get more power - or - this is where the Rules get even more hard to follow...

   Part 15.247(b)(3) actually gives you a free 6 dBi if you use a directional antenna your "intentional radiator". How do the do this? Only if the gain of the antenna is over 6 dBi will the Feds want you to roll back the EIRP of your "intentional radiator". You don't have to do it right at 1 watt EIRP. When would you do this? Say if you have an access point in the corner of a building and it needs to aim back into the work area. You don't want an omni-directional antenna as about 75% of the power would be going out the windows. Why not use a directional to keep the signal in the building and penetrate through the walls better? If we have antenna gain of about 12 dBi and in this case the antenna is a directional antenna. With the transmitter putting out 30 dBm and the coax has 1.6 dB of loss we have an "intentional radiator" that is putting out (30 dBm + 12 dBi - 1.6 dB) or 40.4 dBm or just over 10 watts EIRP. Since the antenna gain is 12 dBi and we have to reduce the power of this "intentional radiator" 1 db for every db we go over 6 dBi of the antenna we would have to roll the power back to 34.4 dBm or 2.2 watts EIRP (40.4 dBm - (12 dBi - 6 dBi)). Well, it is slightly better than 30 dBm or 1 watt EIRP.

3. Fixed, point-to-point paths and get even more power...

   There is another exception to this section of the FCC rules. Part 15.247(b)(3)(i) covers systems that are "fixed, point-to-point". That means this path only has two transmitters involved and they are bolted down by never moving their locations. Automobiles may not apply. An example would be if you have an access point and a user that is a couple blocks or even tens of miles away that you want to connect to.

   This exception is more lenient as you only need to turn down the "intentional radiator" 1 dB for every 3 dB of signal over the 6 dBi of the antenna system. The FCC does this as it knows that these paths will not likely not be omni directional on each end and will have less of a chance to interfere with others as well as the need to span some long distances.

   Lets look at an example using the same antenna, transmission line and transmitter as above. Without turning anything down we had an "intentional radiator" that was producing 40 dBm or 10 watts EIRP. Since the antenna gain is 12 dBi and we have to reduce the power of this "intentional radiator" 1 db for every 3 db we go over 6 dBi of antenna gain we would have to roll the power back to 38.4 dBm or 7 watts EIRP (40.4 - (12 dBi - 6 dBi) / 3).

Real world examples...

1. Omnidirectional Point-to-Multi-point...

2. Directional Point-to-Multi-point...

3. Directional Fixed, Point-to-Point...

   Recently I put up a short path between myself and a neighbor about 2 blocks away (.2 miles). I have an Apple Airport that uses the Lucent Wavelan Silver card that puts out 30 mW or about 15 dBm. The antennas have a gain of 24 dBi with a transmission line loss of about 6 db. This gives me an "intentional radiator" power of 48 dBi. Since the antenna gain is 18 dBi over the 6 dBi that the FCC gives you and since it is a fixed, point-to-point link I would have to limit my

   [...]

   Since the little Wavelan card only puts out 15 dBm, I am legal as far as part 15.247 goes.

Quicky Definitions...

1. deciBels - dB

   dB, or one tenth of a Bel, is a unit of mesurment that looks at the ratio of one value to another. Gain or loss can be measured in dB. The dB scale is an exponential scale using the formula log(ratio)*10. This means that 3 dB is about twice the power, 10 dB is 10 times the power, 13 dB is about 20 times the power and 20 dB is 100 times the power.

2. dBm

   dBm is deciBels referenced to a value of 1 miliWatt of power. Power over or under 1mW would be plus or minus dBm respectively.

   If you have a transmitter that produces 1 watt of power that would be 1000 times more than 1 mW so that converts to 30 dBm.

3. dBW

   dBW is deciBels referenced to a value of 1 Watt of power. Power over or under 1 Watt would be plus or minus dBW respectively.

4. Effective Isotropic Radiated Power - EIRP

   Effective Isotropic Radiated Power defines the gain of an antenna over an "isotropic antenna" that would radiate equally in all directions.

   An example would be a light bulb. A lightbulb is designed to radiate light equally well in all directions, except the direction that the base is in.

   If you have an antenna that radiates better in one direction than another, it would likely have gain in this direction. The amount of gain would be shown as "dBi" or dB gain (or loss) over an "isotropic antenna".

   To further our example above, if we have a light bulb and put it in front of a mirror, we would be taking the light radiation that would be heading in the direction of the mirror and reflecting it back in the same direction of the light not directed towards the mirror. Hence you would have twice the amount of light going in the direction of the refelction. As we are doubling the amount of light, we have a "gain" of 3dB or 3dBi.

By Tim Pozar - pozar@lns.com
for the Bay Area Wireless User Group

1. Background
   1. Introduction

      With the unlicensed use of 802.11b radio Ethernet devices in the Industrial, Scientific and Medical band that has been set aside for such use, there is confusion of what is allowed or limited by the Federal Communication Commissions Rules and Regulations. This paper is meant to help guide folks through the cryptic nature of these rules.

      This paper does not cover other legal issues of using these devices such as FCC type-acceptance, Radio Frequency Radiation issues (ie. ANSI RFR levels) or Appropiate Use Policies (AUPs) of ISPs you may connect to.

   2. What is the FCC's involvement in this mess?

      The FCC is a regulation body whose purpose was defined in the Communications Act of 1934 as:

      "For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter."

      The FCC, with the Act of 1934, was empowered to regulate wire and wireless communications. Wired communications regulation was needed to monitor and regulate monopolies. Wireless regulation is needed as the spectrum is finite. The FCC is the "traffic cop" to ensure that communications is not interfered with.

2. Part 15 of the Rules and Regulations

   Almost every bit of spectrum is regulated by the FCC with the exception of extreamly high or low frequency spectrum and bands managed by the Intergovernmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) for the military and other goverment orginizations, by licensing operators of radio equipment. The part of the FCC's rules that cover the operation of equipment that does not need a license is (3) Except as shown in paragraphs (b)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii) of this section, if transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used the peak output power from the intentional radiator shall be reduced below the stated values in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as appropriate, by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

   • (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum peak output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi."

3. Lets dissect this section...
   • Part 15.247(b)(1) defines the maximum power that an intentional radiator can put out as 1 watt.

   • Part 15.247(b)(2) doesn't apply as it is covering devices in the 902-928 MHz band and 802.11b devices are in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band.

   • Part 15.247(b)(3) covers the need for limiting the amount of radiation the "intentional radiator" can emit with "directional gain" antennas. It says that in general (with an exception coming up) that if the gain of the antenna system is more than 6 dBi, the intentional radiator needs to be turned down to keep the emission at the 1 watt maximum plus 6 dBi (36 dBm or 4 watts EIRP). The FCC encorages the use of directional antennas. With that they give you 6 dBi more power for not poluting the rest of your space with radiation that is not needed to do what you need to do.

   • Part 15.247(b)(3)(i) covers the need for limiting the amount of radiation the "intentional radiator" can emit running "fixed, point-to-point" with "directional gain" antennas. This means that the transmitter is mounted not on a moblie device and is talking to one other transmitter.

Do we need to turn down the transmitter?

1. Omni-directional or Point to Multi-point paths...

   15.247(b)(3) makes the assumption that you are running a point to multi-point network much like an Apple Airport or Cisco/Aironet AP box with a number of computers connecting to the network. They may be randomly surrounding the access point so you are not using a directional antenna.

   But what does the FCC mean when they limit the "intentional radiator" to one watt?

   This is a critical sticking point in understanding what the FCC is talking about. There is some question of what an "intentional radiator" consists of and what and where exactly is 1 watt measured. Unfortunatly if you just look at these poorly written rules you will not understand what the FCC means here. One has to look a bit deeper to the "Report and Order" and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" that generated this section of the rules.

   Things get a little clearer when we read this sentence in paragraph 4 of the Report and Order...

   • "The current regulations limit spread spectrum systems to a maximum peak transmitter output power of one watt. When operating at that power level, the maximum directional gain of the associated antenna may not exceed 6 dBi, resulting in a maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of four watts, i.e., 6 dBW."
   With the old rules they are refering to the "intentional radiator" as a whole with a directional antenna can't exceed 6 dBw or 36 dBm and the antenna gain can't be more than 6 dBI. The transmitter can be up to one watt.

   In order to know if we are legal or if we need to turn down the transmitter we need to know the gain of your "intentional radiator". Let's say your access point actually puts out 1 watt of power and you want to put an omni-directiona antenna on it that has a gain of 5 dBi such as the ORiNOCO Range Extender Antenna".

   We know the gain of the antenna, the transmitter but we also need to know the loss of the transmission line going to the antenna as this attenuats the transmitter output power going into the antenna. Looking up the attenuation of a common coax cable such as RG-8 on an coax attenuation table we find that at 2.4 GHz we have 16 dB of loss with 100 feet of cable. With a 10 foot cable your loss is about 1.6 dB. So your new "intentional radiator" will be radiating transmitter power output plus antenna gain minus coax loss or (30dBm + 5 dBi - 1.6 db) or 33.4 dBm or 2.2 watts EIRP.

   Since this is a non-directional antenna you are limited to 1 watt EIRP or 30 dBm. The transmitter will need to be turned down 3.4 dB to 26.6 dBm or about 0.45 watts (450 mW) to get you back to 30 dBm or 1 watt EIRP.

   If you think about this you may ask, "why add an omni-directional gain antenna it if I already was at 30 dBm?" You would be correct that it would be a waste of time. But if you had something like an Apple Airport that will only put out 15 dBm or 30 mW then you can add an omni-directional gain antenna and it will extend your "roaming" area. In fact you can add up to 15 dB of gain with an omni-directional antenna before you need to attenuate the output of the Wavelan card in the Airport.

2. Use a directional antenna and get more power - or - this is where the Rules get even more hard to follow...

   Part 15.247(b)(3) actually gives you a free 6 dBi if you use a directional antenna your "intentional radiator". How do the do this? Only if the gain of the antenna is over 6 dBi will the Feds want you to roll back the EIRP of your "intentional radiator". You don't have to do it right at 1 watt EIRP. When would you do this? Say if you have an access point in the corner of a building and it needs to aim back into the work area. You don't want an omni-directional antenna as about 75% of the power would be going out the windows. Why not use a directional to keep the signal in the building and penetrate through the walls better? If we have antenna gain of about 12 dBi and in this case the antenna is a directional antenna. With the transmitter putting out 30 dBm and the coax has 1.6 dB of loss we have an "intentional radiator" that is putting out (30 dBm + 12 dBi - 1.6 dB) or 40.4 dBm or just over 10 watts EIRP. Since the antenna gain is 12 dBi and we have to reduce the power of this "intentional radiator" 1 db for every db we go over 6 dBi of the antenna we would have to roll the power back to 34.4 dBm or 2.2 watts EIRP (40.4 dBm - (12 dBi - 6 dBi)). Well, it is slightly better than 30 dBm or 1 watt EIRP.

3. Fixed, point-to-point paths and get even more power...

   There is another exception to this section of the FCC rules. Part 15.247(b)(3)(i) covers systems that are "fixed, point-to-point". That means this path only has two transmitters involved and they are bolted down by never moving their locations. Automobiles may not apply. An example would be if you have an access point and a user that is a couple blocks or even tens of miles away that you want to connect to.

   This exception is more lenient as you only need to turn down the "intentional radiator" 1 dB for every 3 dB of signal over the 6 dBi of the antenna system. The FCC does this as it knows that these paths will not likely not be omni directional on each end and will have less of a chance to interfere with others as well as the need to span some long distances.

   Lets look at an example using the same antenna, transmission line and transmitter as above. Without turning anything down we had an "intentional radiator" that was producing 40 dBm or 10 watts EIRP. Since the antenna gain is 12 dBi and we have to reduce the power of this "intentional radiator" 1 db for every 3 db we go over 6 dBi of antenna gain we would have to roll the power back to 38.4 dBm or 7 watts EIRP (40.4 - (12 dBi - 6 dBi) / 3).

Real world examples...

1. Omnidirectional Point-to-Multi-point...

2. Directional Point-to-Multi-point...

3. Directional Fixed, Point-to-Point...

   Recently I put up a short path between myself and a neighbor about 2 blocks away (.2 miles). I have an Apple Airport that uses the Lucent Wavelan Silver card that puts out 30 mW or about 15 dBm. The antennas have a gain of 24 dBi with a transmission line loss of about 6 db. This gives me an "intentional radiator" power of 48 dBi. Since the antenna gain is 18 dBi over the 6 dBi that the FCC gives you and since it is a fixed, point-to-point link I would have to limit my

   [...]

   Since the little Wavelan card only puts out 15 dBm, I am legal as far as part 15.247 goes.

Quicky Definitions...

1. deciBels - dB

   dB, or one tenth of a Bel, is a unit of mesurment that looks at the ratio of one value to another. Gain or loss can be measured in dB. The dB scale is an exponential scale using the formula log(ratio)*10. This means that 3 dB is about twice the power, 10 dB is 10 times the power, 13 dB is about 20 times the power and 20 dB is 100 times the power.

2. dBm

   dBm is deciBels referenced to a value of 1 miliWatt of power. Power over or under 1mW would be plus or minus dBm respectively.

   If you have a transmitter that produces 1 watt of power that would be 1000 times more than 1 mW so that converts to 30 dBm.

3. dBW

   dBW is deciBels referenced to a value of 1 Watt of power. Power over or under 1 Watt would be plus or minus dBW respectively.

4. Effective Isotropic Radiated Power - EIRP

   Effective Isotropic Radiated Power defines the gain of an antenna over an "isotropic antenna" that would radiate equally in all directions.

   An example would be a light bulb. A lightbulb is designed to radiate light equally well in all directions, except the direction that the base is in.

   If you have an antenna that radiates better in one direction than another, it would likely have gain in this direction. The amount of gain would be shown as "dBi" or dB gain (or loss) over an "isotropic antenna".

   To further our example above, if we have a light bulb and put it in front of a mirror, we would be taking the light radiation that would be heading in the direction of the mirror and reflecting it back in the same direction of the light not directed towards the mirror. Hence you would have twice the amount of light going in the direction of the refelction. As we are doubling the amount of light, we have a "gain" of 3dB or 3dBi.

"Slamming," or switching a consumer's telephone carrier without his or her knowledge or consent, is prohibited by the FCC's rules. The Commission enforces these rules by investigating individual complaints and patterns of slamming practices and punishes those who slam.

Here, read the actual things submitted to the FCC here including internal photos, a manual for the 270, etc., etc. Or you can just go to Visorcentral (www.visorcentral.com) and read their writeup on it. But the FCC's page is more informative, IMO.

Mark

There is a PDF on the FCC's website with lots of pretty pictures.

VisorCentral has also picked up the story (complete with pictures):

http://visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1448-1.htm

FCC also has info including the users manual

VisorCentral has also picked up the story (complete with pictures):

http://visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1448-1.htm

FCC also has info including the users manual

The question isn't so much whether microwaves cook you (which nobody believes) but whether their high frequency EM radiation accelerates cell mutation thus increasing the chance of cancer. A lot of experts have weighed in on this issue, generally contradicting whatever the previous expert said. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue, though I can't help but remember those police officers who may have gotten cancer from their radar guns. OSHA EMF info here. FCC EMF page.

You have the right to jam my cell and I slash your tires. We're all even, right? Actually, they DID take it into account. You know, the FCC rule that states 'this electronic device must accept any interference blah blah blah...'?

Speaking of the FCC, when did you licence your jammer for operation? That failed (multi billion dollar) business model has, and that's why I have a right to operate my cell and you don't. Legal speaking, your up shit creek. So no, you don't have a right to jam cellphones just like I don't have a right to slash your tires. Don't take my word for it, visit the FCC for details. Sorry fo ya.

The US FCC requires manufacturers to test the RF Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) on tissue. The FCC specifies a maximum SAR of 1.6 W/kg of tissue. All of the filings are available for public consumption at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/

Enter the FCC ID number from your cell phone (mine was under the battery) in the form, with the first 3 characters in the left dialog and the rest in the right.

This links to a list of filings for this device. Check the "Display Exhibits" and you'll see the SAR report for the device. For example, for the phone I have, the Kyocera 2255, this is the report filed for body-worn SAR:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/ret rieve.cgi?attachment_id=182858&native_or_pdf=pdf

The data included has the power output and SAR at all of the different transmission modes for the device. Also, check out the neat-o plots.

Interesting that they have different permeabilities for muscle fluid and brain fluid, resulting in much higher maximum SAR for holding the phone to the ear (1.47 W/kg) than when its on the body (0.562 W/kg).

-molo

The US FCC requires manufacturers to test the RF Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) on tissue. The FCC specifies a maximum SAR of 1.6 W/kg of tissue. All of the filings are available for public consumption at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/

Enter the FCC ID number from your cell phone (mine was under the battery) in the form, with the first 3 characters in the left dialog and the rest in the right.

This links to a list of filings for this device. Check the "Display Exhibits" and you'll see the SAR report for the device. For example, for the phone I have, the Kyocera 2255, this is the report filed for body-worn SAR:

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/ret rieve.cgi?attachment_id=182858&native_or_pdf=pdf

The data included has the power output and SAR at all of the different transmission modes for the device. Also, check out the neat-o plots.

Interesting that they have different permeabilities for muscle fluid and brain fluid, resulting in much higher maximum SAR for holding the phone to the ear (1.47 W/kg) than when its on the body (0.562 W/kg).

-molo

Oh sure, they're required to use a DNC list, but once your name/number gets distributed to the wild, it's all over.

As a case in point, yesterday I received 10 phone calls between 11:45am and 12:45pm. One was from a friend, two were from sales/marketroids that hung up on me when I asked them to identify (politely) who they were and what company they were representing, and the other seven were those goddamn annoying automated systems, that hung up on connecting. While this is (slightly) heavier than normal for my residential line, how do you get DNC'd when you can't identify who's calling or just get hung up on? Caller ID is no good, %90 of all telemarketing/sales calls I get are "out of area" probably due to their switching system. I've asked our local telephone company if there was anything that could be done (repeatedly, still trying to find someone who knows what they're doing), and have been told in every instance that there's nothing they can do.

I'm not going to give up, if you don't complain / do something about your situation, it's never going to get any better, but in my experience, DNC lists and almost anything that requires you to opt-out is almost utterly useless. If anyone's interested, the FCC's factsheet that you were referencing on what little can be done about unsolicited phone calls / telemarketing can be found here.

And please, please, don't say that there's never a need to fill out personal information anywhere. The real world just doesn't work like that, although I lie on everything I possibly can.

This may be a reality sooner than you think. The FCC (on direction from Congress) has mandated that the Cable Industry have an Open Cable Standard (suprisingly enough called OpenCable) that would allow you to purchase a cable box at BestBuy and bring it home (Amended Telecom Act of 1934, Section 624a, c.2.c). Your local cable provider would provide a POD (PCMCIA card) that would decode the signal and provide it back to the box to show on your TV.

The whole purpose of this is when you move to a different cable provider, you can use the same box and just get a different POD to decode the signal

According to the FCC, the Cable Industry had to have a working example by 2001, and they did (well, close enough to count). Hopefully we'll start seeing this make it to the consumer before the mandated 2005 date...

This may be a reality sooner than you think. The FCC (on direction from Congress) has mandated that the Cable Industry have an Open Cable Standard (suprisingly enough called OpenCable) that would allow you to purchase a cable box at BestBuy and bring it home (Amended Telecom Act of 1934, Section 624a, c.2.c). Your local cable provider would provide a POD (PCMCIA card) that would decode the signal and provide it back to the box to show on your TV.

The whole purpose of this is when you move to a different cable provider, you can use the same box and just get a different POD to decode the signal

According to the FCC, the Cable Industry had to have a working example by 2001, and they did (well, close enough to count). Hopefully we'll start seeing this make it to the consumer before the mandated 2005 date...

And a quick note:
The FCC has approved UWB devices from 3.1-10.6ghz, so STOP YA BITCHIN New Public Safety Applications and Broadband Internet Access Among Uses Envisioned by FCC Authorisation of Ultra-Wideband Technology

You'd be far worse seeing the result on a 5" black and white TV, or listening to it in mono. With DVD's, the studios can't control what you use to view it, so until they way to force you to see it only on an approved viewer, they have no leg to stand on. However, that may not be too far away when we get to a HDTV/digital-only world when analog tv is outlawed in 2006.

seems odd that telco's would look at the popularity of "cheap" online alternatives and be upset, as opposed to altering their pricing schemes to be more appealing to "the populaces"

For years, telcos in developing countries used international call charges as a sort of "tax" on emigrants. People would move out of the country, go live in the US or UK or Germany or wherever, earn a whole lot more money, and spend some of it calling their relatives left behind in the homeland. And then the exhorbitant settlement rate would funnel money back from overseas.

Arguably, this is a good thing since it allows comparatively wealthy migrants to subsidize service to poor locals who would otherwise not be able to afford it. Of course, in practice the telcos are usually so incompetent that the money just gets wasted or disappears into various people's pockets.

This changed a lot, of course, when the FCC unilaterally initiated settlement rate reform in 1998, one of the most brilliant pieces of public policy the US has ever pulled off. Now, the amount by which inbound callers can be gouged is strictly limited (hence the drastic decrease in international call costs that we've seen in the past few years).

However, telcos are still free to gouge their own citizens, presumably carrying on the spirit of the earlier "tax" by indirectly siphoning away some of the money that these people's overseas relatives send home.

Anyway, without the large sums received from hiked-up international call charges, many of these telcos would fall apart. In the current post-1998 climate, this might not be a bad thing - eliminating communications-cost friction certainly would bring about long-term productivity improvements in developing economies. But you can't expect the telcos to be excited about it.

The biggest problem with Uiniversal Service Fees is that there is no oversight with regards to how phone companies collect them. The FCC recommends rates that telephone companies should use to collect these fees (6.9187% for fourth quarter of 2001 and 6.8086% for first quarter of 2002) but allows telephone companies to set their actual percentages to anything they want. Qwest is already collecting 8.1462% from their DSL subscribers, in addition to rates collected on POTS service, not because it's mandated, but BECAUSE THEY CAN. When they collect more than they need, they pocket it rather than lower the rate. Take a look at your phone bill, people. Then call your state's utilities commission and bitch about it.

The ARRL has been an active participant in the FCC's UWB proceeding (ET Docket 98-153). Check with ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay (W3KD) or Technical Liason Paul Rinaldo (W4RI). All of the submissions to the FCC record on UWB can be found at FCC E-Filing
Type in "98-153" for the Proceeding number.

According to this page from the FCC, E911 is "enhanced 911". I didn't really read much of the page, but it does appear to be different from basic 911.

• Tauzin-Dingell (H.R. 1542): If you don't like your providers new TOS, good luck finding a new one.
  
• The FCC classifies cable internet service as information service, rather than a telecommunications service. The upshot is no regulation of service, no protection from abusive monopolies.
  
  Perhaps you were thinking of laws that act in the public interest? Well, you get what you vote for, I guess.
  
  

Thank You, I will, because this is one web page where I don't want to be featured !

You'll notice, if you read the various Orders, that the fines are on the order of $3000-11000.

So, go ahead, be an asshole, transmit illegally. You could be the next David Edwin Merrell

Thank You, I will, because this is one web page where I don't want to be featured !

You'll notice, if you read the various Orders, that the fines are on the order of $3000-11000.

So, go ahead, be an asshole, transmit illegally. You could be the next David Edwin Merrell

Try reading the document here instead:

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi? native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512980637

fobbman Thanks, Michael. Now AOL/Time Warner can continue on with their complete ownership of the fastest home-based broadband Internet service available.

Perhaps his reply should sound like this...

Michael: "You are very welcome Mr. fobbman! Did you read the article at the top of the page at all? AOL-Time Warner will continue to provide competitive access becuase it was a condition of their merger, ordered by the government, just as it says above. Thus subjecting AOL to continued regulation just like a telco!"

Michael: "Oh! By the way, my name is Michael POWELL *not* Parker."

And cable television providers are not under the same rules as telcos - they contract with local governments, who typically guarantee monopoly within a particular geographic area in exchange for universal availability of service and public access programming. These contracts are outside the realm of the FCC but well within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.

While I'm not sure about the jurisdiction of those contracts, I am sure that Cable Television falls squarely under the the jursidiction of the FCC. Check out theTelecom Act of 1934 which created the FCC and gives it jursidiction over "wire and radio communication services".

Y'know, I don't care about the cable regulation one way or the other as much as some people, but I think the FCC has really missed the boat on their classification of the service here. What people have demonstrated that they want, time and time again, is connectivity. We want a high-speed telecommunications service. If we want an information service too, we'll get a web browser, or something like that. We don't need the FCC to decide for us what we want; we know what we want.

I have to disagree that the FCC missed the boat on their classification. Based on current regulation (Telecom Act of 1996), Cable-Modem service is an Information Service!

INFORMATION SERVICE.--The term ''information service'' means the offering of
a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing,
or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing,
but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation
of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.

The FCC is just interpreting the laws that Congress has passed! And I agree with their interpretation. But that doesn't mean I agree that Cable companies should be able to keep their networks closed. I think that Data Services (people who deliver raw bandwith) should (probably) be regulated like Voice traffic and enforced competition. But the FCC really isnt' the one to blame, it's Congress. Write your Congress-person!

The FCC already tracks down interference problems through their regional offices. Go to this link and get a clue. The FCC has three Regional Offices, 16 District Offices, and nine Resident Agent Offices located across the United States and each of them "Investigates and resolves interference." And they don't just do it for Senators. They do it for constituents, too, though probably with less vigor.

Then this lone senator will pass legislation outlawing all computer parts.

Where did you go to school? "Lone" Senators don't pass legislation. They introduce legislation and it gets discussed and voted on. How did you think legislation was introduced? By Moses on stone tablets?

Members of Congress are there to pass laws. They are looking for laws that will be popular with voters and campaign contributers. Laws that crack down on "hackers" are something that the majority of the voting public likes. This would just be another one of those laws.

And ham radios. And walkie-talkies. And Radio Shacks.

Ham radios, walkie talkies, etc. are all regulated by the FCC. They operate on specific bands with specific power outputs. They can't just randomly spew interference or the FCC takes action against the manufacturer.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Case mods are "rude."

Yes, I am. When you indiscriminantly remove shielding intended to prevent interference, it's rude. Grow up.

Actually what I said was when you RENT. You are talking about owning. Here is the FCC link: Link
And here is part of the ruling. As I said it pertains to the renters. In response to the Further Notice, the Commission now amends the rule, within the bounds of its statutory authority, to give many renters a choice in video programming services. The rule prohibits restrictions that impair the use of dishes and antennas in rented apartments, homes, or other dwellings, and adjacent outside property such as balconies, patios, gardens or yards that are exclusively used by the renter

Actually what I said was when you RENT. You are talking about owning. Here is the FCC link: Link
And here is part of the ruling. As I said it pertains the renters. In response to the Further Notice, the Commission now amends the rule, within the bounds of its statutory authority, to give many renters a choice in video programming services. The rule prohibits restrictions that impair the use of dishes and antennas in rented apartments, homes, or other dwellings, and adjacent outside property such as balconies, patios, gardens or yards that are exclusively used by the renter

Guess again. The CE mark has absolutely nothing to do with the FCC.

The FCC is an independent United States government agency that is is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.

The CE mark is used the by the European Commission as a "passport" which can allow a manufacturer to freely circulate their products within the European marketplace

Have your diplomatic corps start pounding on the US Department of State and the various Congressional committees about the acid rain you've been suffering from in southern Ontario and southern Quebec,and make them fix the coal-burning power plants in Ohio and Michigan.

That ought to distract Congress long enough for us to file complaints about the Adolescent Bells and their DSL practices!

OBTW, if anyone is having trouble getting colo space from SBC, take a look at the following
FCC Notice and use THAT as leverage with your CongressCritter as to how "fair" the Adolescent Bells have been behaving!

DSL is a necessary evil in those areas encumbered with AOLTW cable systems, otherwise Broadband Rules.