Slashdot Mirror

Pardon me for adding appropriate emphasis, but this is almost everything that's wrong with America. Government can not require anything that the market will not support without someone paying for it.

Well, for the most part, I agree. However, it is almost exactly this same requirement that has placed a telephone in 94.6% of homes in the US. I cannot put my fingers on statistics for other countries, currently; however, the last time I saw them the numbers were significantly lower, even in most of Western Europe. AT&T and some small ILECs were given a monopoly during the depths of the depression in exchange for a mandate of providing service for all. I would suggest that however much this deal contributed to the ultimate rise of the US economy, we citizens made out pretty well. Could such a deal as this bill provides mean as much to our future?

I find it hard to believe that retracting this act is going to right the wrongs it created, but I have no idea why. Simply put, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 resulted in the biggest blow to a free market in history. At least, that's my interpretation. The number of entities that control the nations media, from books, to music, to TV and movies, went from somwhere in the hundreds, to the present 6. But if retracting the act now would in any way rectify that, companies like the Bells and Verizon (who have a very hefty interest in preserving the ownership deregulations) would be up in arms protecting it.

So why exactly can the FCC legislate which technology consumers and businesses must use? What is wrong with the old fashioned free-market economy? How is this better/worse than regulating content? IMHO, the FCC should ONLY license bandwith, and not legislate it's use. We have 3 branches of government to handle any REAL decency vs. free speech issues, and a free market to handle the rest.

Then you need to go here and get one of these a fcc amateur radio license

I just submitted this story to slashdot. In any case, here is an article on Newsfactor, explaining how this decision will release the phone companies from their obligations to open their networks to rivals. Here is the action by the FCC, and here is a dissent by Commissioner Michael J. Copps, who warns that the commission is committing itself to "specific and potentially drastic changes to our precedent that carry with them enormous impacts in the market".

I just submitted this story to slashdot. In any case, here is an article on Newsfactor, explaining how this decision will release the phone companies from their obligations to open their networks to rivals. Here is the action by the FCC, and here is a dissent by Commissioner Michael J. Copps, who warns that the commission is committing itself to "specific and potentially drastic changes to our precedent that carry with them enormous impacts in the market".

The correct fix would be a little 6-10db amp on the output of the Linksys, giving nice, clean power out to that 18db dish. Anyone have a source?

My suggestion would be Down East Microwave . They have lots of quality hardware. They say they won't sell 2.4 gHz stuff to non-hams but if you know enough to use the hardware, you can probably bluff your way along.

A 21dB pre-amp (for the RX end) is just $85 (and totally legal for anyone to use). If you are not a ham and want to break federal laws, check out their 2.3-2.4 linear amp. With one watt drive, it'll put out 15 watts. They make an amp that will put out 120 watts but it requires 10-20 watts of drive.

Trust me, folks, if you know a bit about electronics and want to do cool radio stuff, get a ham license. It'll cost you less than $20 (plus the cost of a book if you want to study first). In coolness alone, you'll be paid back many times over.

InitZero

That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.

I found this stuff from the FCC interesting, too:

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.(1)

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.

I found this stuff from the FCC interesting, too:

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.(1)

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.

I found this stuff from the FCC interesting, too:

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.(1)

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

That doesn't necessarily make it legal, though - take a look at some of the recent action by the FCC against people and organizations violating the Communications Act of 1934/1996. The interesting thing is that against individuals, a good deal of the action seemed to focus on pirate radio.

I found this stuff from the FCC interesting, too:

Of those statutes that may govern interception of radio communications, the FCC only has the authority to interpret Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 605, "Unauthorized Publication of Communications." Section 705 of the Communications Act generally does not prohibit the mere interception of radio communications, although mere interception of radio communications may violate other Federal or State statutes. In other words, if you happen to over hear your neighbor's cordless telephone, you do not violate the Communications Act. Similarly, if you listen to radio transmissions on your scanner, such as emergency service reports, you are not in violation of Section 705. However, a violation of Section 705 would occur if you divulge or publish what you hear or use it for your own or someone else's benefit. An example of using an intercepted call for a beneficial use in violation of Section 705 would be someone listening to accident reports on a police channel and then sending his or her tow truck to the reported accident scene in order to obtain business.(1)

The Communications Act does allow for the divulgence of certain types of radio transmissions, however. The statute specifies that there are no restrictions on the divulgence or use of radio communications that have been transmitted for the use of the general public (i.e. transmissions of a local radio or television broadcast station); or relate to ships, aircraft, vehicles or persons in distress; or are transmitted by amateur radio or citizens band radio operators.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Ghandi

So I went and looked for myself. According to the FCC cellular FAQ, their regs ban cell use only when the plane is in the air. (Section 22.925 47 CFR Part 22.) I couldn't find an official explanation as to why, but news reports say that FCC hearings in 1991 raised concerns over interference ground networks. In any case, it's difficult to see why else the FCC would care.

This regulation may or may not make sense technically, but it does exist.

As for use of electronic gadgets on airplanes, that's covered by this FAA circular. Transmitters of any kind are banned. There's nothing specific about receivers or other gadgets, but operators are required to make their own rules banning devices that might interfere with the operation of the plane. So obviously the rules against "things with antennas" and lasers come from the airlanes -- or maybe even individual flight crew.

Here's my last word on the gas station story. Your logic is very interesting, but I prefer to actually count the teeth. In a previous link (I can't be bothered to find and post it again) I referred to a safety expert who reported the utter absence of this episode in his professional literature.

The FCC has this posted on their site describing the 3G bandwidth Standards. Wireless 3G when implemented according to these fcc standards should allow for the following bitrates:

Capability to support circuit and packet data at high bit rates:
144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic
384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic
2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic

I'm not too sure how you pulled out a real world speed of 20-30k. According to the FCC standards this "IS" considered a 3G network for High mobility Vehicular traffic, but is not the full 3G deal, as it does not support the other bitrates or the full functionality of a complete 3G Network. The system when fully implemented will allow for much higher than 20-30k and will vary depending on the location you're in. 3G isn't all marketing hype, it's a very large step ahead of our current network (when fully implemented of course). Unfortunatly we won't see the full benefits of the system for a while, until the products using 3G become more available, and companies such as Verizon implement more aspects of the 3G standard.

The FCC has this posted on their site describing the 3G bandwidth Standards. Wireless 3G when implemented according to these fcc standards should allow for the following bitrates:

Capability to support circuit and packet data at high bit rates:
144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic
384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic
2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic

I'm not too sure how you pulled out a real world speed of 20-30k. According to the FCC standards this "IS" considered a 3G network for High mobility Vehicular traffic, but is not the full 3G deal, as it does not support the other bitrates or the full functionality of a complete 3G Network. The system when fully implemented will allow for much higher than 20-30k and will vary depending on the location you're in. 3G isn't all marketing hype, it's a very large step ahead of our current network (when fully implemented of course). Unfortunatly we won't see the full benefits of the system for a while, until the products using 3G become more available, and companies such as Verizon implement more aspects of the 3G standard.

The people were sold out by the Telecommunications act of 1996 - check out section 202 of this

Basically what it does is takes away the old rule that a person can't own more than one media outlet of any certain type in a certain area. Although it allows for competition by regulating the number of radio stations in a city it seems like a big buisness friendly move to me...

I hate Qwest with a passion; but, I will say that opting out is relatively easy.

You might need to look your customer ID (the three digits after your phone number), but it's simple, otherwise. They'll send you a brief email confirmation.

Oh, and don't forget to complain to the FCC while you're at it.

-cheers, csb

Don't even get me started on my Qwest/Directv problems.

Here's the link to the fcc form I've filled out a couple of times to make myself feel a little better.

http://www.fcc.gov/cib/ccformpage.html

The only way that they can prevent copying is if they were to replace every TV in the world with TVs that can decode an encrypted signal *after* it enters the TV.

The Federal Communications Commission (US analog to Canada's CRTC) has mandated that TV stations go digital by January 1, 2006, when the FCC will terminate television stations' analog spectrum licenses.

I'd recommend reading some of what Michael Powell (chair of the FCC) has had to say about telecommunications and broadband--especially in light of state efforts (Michigan, for example) to have the government pay for massive broadband rollouts to customers who, quite frankly, aren't yet interested in the present services at the current prices. Here and Here

I'd recommend reading some of what Michael Powell (chair of the FCC) has had to say about telecommunications and broadband--especially in light of state efforts (Michigan, for example) to have the government pay for massive broadband rollouts to customers who, quite frankly, aren't yet interested in the present services at the current prices. Here and Here

The ATSC HDTV standard uses 8-VSB modulation, providing approximately 19.39 Mbps of channel capacity. 1080i video will use almost all of that. See the FCC DTV FAQ.

For anyone seriously interested in the technical and official aspects of DTV, either for Internet or video, be sure to check out the FCC's Digital Television: MM Docket No. 87-268 page. The FCC is reallocating TV channels 52-59 (687-746MHz) for digital broadcasting, perhaps even Clear Channel's Internet will be used on that part of the spectrum. Evidently, Clear Channel wants to convert all analog broadcasts to digital, but 687-746MHz will act as a sort of test bed.

For anyone seriously interested in the technical and official aspects of DTV, either for Internet or video, be sure to check out the FCC's Digital Television: MM Docket No. 87-268 page. The FCC is reallocating TV channels 52-59 (687-746MHz) for digital broadcasting, perhaps even Clear Channel's Internet will be used on that part of the spectrum. Evidently, Clear Channel wants to convert all analog broadcasts to digital, but 687-746MHz will act as a sort of test bed.

If I'm not mistaken, you can thank The Telecommunications Act of 1996 for most of the deregulation.

Thanks to whoever posted the FCC ID. The ID is O7JGL2411AP (note first character is letter O, which is not what they posted). The post didn't say which of the OEM brands this corresponds to, but I expect all are the same.

This device is certified for only 82 mW of output power. 100 mW is a violation.

So indeed, the FCC will be upset by the hack. In this case it is the license grantee who will get in trouble (global sun technology inc, jung li city, Taiwan) for building a device that users can take out of compliance.

View the FCC license for the device if you are interested.

That'll be kinda hard once the FCC reclaims and sells off the NTSC spectrum. Unless you like static.

The future of digital radio in the US is anyone's guess right now. There's satellite, IBOC, spread spectrum proposals, and more. Keeping those in mind, and looking at current FCC policy, however, I wouldn't be so sure your current FM radio is still going to be good 10 years from now.

XM Radio Inc. has filed an application for modification of its authorization to construct, launch and operate two Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) satellites. XM Radio seeks (1) to increase the maximum EIRP of each of its DARS satellites to 68.5 dBW, (2) to revise its downlink channelization plan by increasing the number of channels from five to six, including four carrier frequencies (two per satellite) of 1.84 MHz each and two frequencies for terrestrial repeaters of 2.53 MHz each, and (3) to increase the transmission rate of each of its satellite carriers to 3.28 Mbit/s.

Our satellites will transmit audio programming within a 12.5 MHz range of S-Band radio frequencies that have been allocated by the FCC for our exclusive use. Megahertz is a unit of measurement of frequency. This 12.5 MHz bandwidth will be subdivided to carry the transmission of six signals, two signals to be transmitted from each of our two satellites and two signals to be transmitted by the terrestrial repeater network. The audio programming for XM Radio will be carried on two satellite signals, and the remaining two satellite signals and the terrestrial repeater signals will repeat the audio programming to enhance overall signal reception. The transmission of higher quality sound requires the use of more kilobits per second than the transmission of lesser quality sound. In order to provide high-quality digital sound, we expect that music channels will require approximately 56 to 64 kilobits per second, depending on the type of compression technology used, whereas talk channels will require significantly less bandwidth. We expect to use our allocated bandwidth in such a way as to provide up to 100 channels of programming, with our music channels having a high bandwidth allocation so as to provide high-quality digital sound.

We have signed a contract with ST Microelectronics to design and produce chips that will decode the XM Radio signal. We have completed the production chipset design and ST Microelectronics has commenced fabrication to make the components available to radio manufacturers starting the end of March 2001.

Technology will include the use of COFDM (Code Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex), which is a superior modulation technique for the delivery of high quality audio, video and data. This modulation technique allows a moving vehicle to receive quality service at highway speeds.

The right honorable Mr. Coward wrote:
Phone solicitation is soooo much more annoying. Why don't people enact laws against that.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act was signed by George Sr. in 1991. The link also has some cute advice about how the law applies to you.

Of course, this is in the states - I don't know where Mr. Coward is from.

Anyway, the FCC/FTC/DOJ/park service etc. periodically come by and close down a telemarketer, but it is pretty much for show, and in every case the telemarketer has actually been charged with fraud, not with calling people who've been asked to have their numbers removed. In general, it being the law anyway, telemarketers will take your # off if you ask (unlike spammers.)

If high speed internet for a traditional internet market is floundering... who's going to jump on the band wagon for high speed Cell Phones?

Well, there is a major interest in getting the infrastructure out there, what's interesting is that according to the FCCs 3g page the bandwidth from a 'stationary' install can be up to 2mbits/sec... faster then DSL. It would be pretty ironic if people ended up using wireless for home internet the way some people now use wireless for home telephone.

according to this 3gio transfers 2.5gb/sec using 8bit encoding (they also mention 10bit encoding in the doc). (I think), they don't give an exact MHz rating, but it works out to about 312mhz. (or 250mhz with 10bit) According to the FCC, 3g uses 2.5 to 2.69ghz and 1.75-1.85ghz. So, 3gio might cause some problems if it was sending one bit at a time, but I don't think it is.

And even if 3gio did work at 2.5ghz (which I really doubt, the fastest clock in any PC these days is no where near that, other then in ultra-high-end CPU cores) PC put out that much interference, then you'd still have the 1.75-85ghz band.

So in other words, I think it's just a misunderstanding of terms.

On a related note, be sure to check out the FCC-ID Number Search page. I used it to find out my Logitech Cordless mouse operates on 27.045MHz. Could be great for van Ecking arbitrary devices.

Step 2: Merge with MediaOne and control 30% of cable.

Step 3: Get the FCC to withdraw the cable ownership caps set during MediaOne merger

Step 4: Buy out the number one broadband company, despite protests from stockholders that AT&T (being the majority stockholder) had set itself up to pay very little for Excite@Home.

I wonder if this loophole is mandated by the CALEA, or under the PATRIOT act, or if the FBI/FCC will leverage the CALEA to encompass de facto hiding of snooping devices... I doubt mcAffee will stand up to the pressure of the FBI slapping an interfering with an investigation charge on them... Not that the FBI would stoop to such strong arm tactics... Welcome to 1984...

Fill out Form 475 at the FCC, and eventaully they will hit them with a large enough fine to make them think twice. I think that willfully breaking federal laws can get you in bigger troubles than just the $500 fine.

THAT came from Michael Powell, son of Colin, then a commissioner (now the Bush-appointed Chairman) of the FCC, not recused from the AOLTW merger vote even though dad was on the AOL board with $13million in stock options. It's from Powell Jr's pre-release statement after the merger went through. AIHS? Read on...

"Despite the Majority's analysis [of AOL's IM] that purports to show a competitive problem in need of a remedy, the Majority (perhaps to its credit) does not mandate interoperability for current iterations of IM. ... When a regulatory agency has to make up its own acronym to describe a product or service it intends to regulate, one should be concerned. ("Behold the Wizard of AIHS.")

"The concern is the implication for Internet regulation. This Order makes clear that the FCC has jurisdiction to regulate virtually every Internet product, or service that facilitates communications under Title I of the Communications Act. But, imposing IM conditions under that authority ignores the fact that the Commission, for decades now, has expressly declined to regulate similar computer, data processing and information services for the very reason that such interference would undermine the energy and drive toward innovation that characterizes these highly competitive markets. Based on the letter of the statute, this may be correct and FCC involvement in Internet communications services may be inevitable. Yet, the implications of that step are not fully considered here and that is why I am most hesitant (indeed unwilling) to make such a substantial leap in the context of an adjudicatory proceeding, without greater notice and a fuller and broader opportunity to comment that would result from an inquiry or rulemaking proceeding."

So AOL's IM near monopoly was left intact through the merger, to protect the open innovation of the Net, UNTIL a new-fangled video Instant Messaging product arrived. Then, perhaps, it would be time to get with the Net regulations... Goodie!

(See Michael's scrapbook photos, read his statements: click The Chairman.}

Further, it means that if their shows are copied -- whether taped on a VCR, or stills shown on entertainment news or whatever -- that there's a little ``hey, this is the work of CBS/NBC/ABC/...'' sign in the bottom, which doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

In Canada, it is now illegal to do "automatic telemarketing", that is it has to be a real person calling. That decreases a lot the amount of telemarketing calls we have.

I still get these calls, but I managed to call the number that the recording gave and got the company's address. I used this information to report the violation to the FCC and I recently got a snailmail stating the matter is under investigation. The FCC has fined companies for violating the TCPA. Next time it happens to you, file a complaint and you may get the satisfaction of costing a telemarketer a lot of money.

View from inside damaged building looking past switches to hole in side of building.

You need to take advantage of the TCPA and extract $500 damages from them. Some people have extracted more than $40,000 from these people. To learn more, visit:

Junk Busters

Use Enigma to log the calls

See if the FCC is already after them

I have already been offered $250 from one telemarketing firm - but I want to go to trial. Also, since I have used the JunkBuster anti-telemarketing script, I am lucky to get any calls at all. The last call was from Qwest on last month - a month after I was sent a letter from one of their lawyers explaining I was on their "do not call list". That call will make me $500 to $1500 when we go to court :)

It's not cheap, but the US Govt. puts those Universal Access Charges to good use. Check out the page on the Universal Service Fund. Sufficiently rural schools can get up to 90% of their bills paid.

You left out a critical part of history that most people aren't even aware of - radio stations found a way to charge for radio broadcasts by - get this - outlawing the manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of technology that could allow reception of certain broadcasts:

"...Section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which states that no one may receive, or assist in receiving, any radio communication to which they are not entitled and use that information for their own benefit. In addition, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 through 2521 prohibit the manufacture, assembly, possession, and sale of any device primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of such radio transmissions."
http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/asd/subcarriers/sub.html

Unfortunately, ISPs are not yet afforded "common Carrier" protections in the US, which is what shields the telcos from liability for the actions of their users. However, in the US, that protection usually also forces the carrier to file tariffs with the FCC. However, physical transportation companies have had the filing requirements removed since 1994 and kept common carrier status, so there is precedent.

Here's the Google cache of FCC Contacts.

It has the e-mail addresses for the comissioners as well.

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov

Comments can be filed online at:
Electronic Comment Filing System

Comments can be filed online at:
Electronic Comment Filing System

Provided you get an FCC license:

Unlicensed Operation Prohibited. A very common question asked to the FCC is whether broadcasting at very low power requires a license. Please be aware that unlicensed operation of radio broadcast stations is prohibited, even at such low powers such as 1 watt or less. The only unlicensed operation that is permitted on the AM and FM broadcast bands is covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules, and is limited to a coverage radius of approximately 200 feet. (See the Commission's July 24, 1991 Public Notice.) Unlicensed operation is also not permitted in the television bands (including 87.9 MHz, which falls within the 82.0 to 88.0 Channel 6 television band). Fines and/or criminal prosecution may result from illegal operation of an unlicensed station.

No, this is the abuse of monopoly power in the radio markets to control the content of what we are exposed to.

You're right, some broadcasting companies have almost become monopolies. I live in Orlando, where there are about six Clear Channel stations.

If we don't like this, we should tell our senators and representatives that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [fcc.gov], which tried to reduce telco monopolies by opening competition, has helped to create radio monopolies by removing the limit on the number of stations a company may own nationwide.

This won't work at all for stations that are trying to broadcast over a 50 mile radius.

Oh, and all those "unlicensed" bands are, in fact, licensed. Maybe not to you. I'm not sure how it works, but the FCC has to approve all the devices sold in the U.S.

The Internet is supposed to be...

• TO EMPOWER K-12 LEARNERS
  
• the promise of our future
  
• to save the American medical system
  
• a global, multipurpose, multimedia communications network
  
• to strengthen Hispanic families and communities
  
• to open the door for competition
  
• for English as a Second Language
  
• for freedom from sysadmin
  
• to transfer the power of the high-speed network effectively to society at large
  
• to compete successfully with Fortune 500 companies
  
• To center learning around the student instead of the classroom
  
• to regain the tails of the normal distribution
  
• to test the founding vision of the framers of the Constitution
  
• to propel the economy forward
  
• a truly democratic means of communication.
  
• to increase mail usage and expand paper consumption
  

Yeah, well, has anyone figured out what frequencies in the spectrum they're using and with whom they're SHARING them as a secondary user under Part 15? Somehow, a reminder and link to the FCC "Customer" Page seems appropriate...