Slashdot Mirror

This fact should serve as proof to everyone that commercialism cannot be allowed to become the backbone of the internet. Without the 'e-blitz' (I made that up just now -- thank you, thank you) that gave birth to this freed medium by beating lawmakers and profiteers to the punch, would we even be talking about this right now? Hell no. The only reason we are; the only reason we can muster thousands of protestors for a cause; is because we get swarms of unfiltered opinions over our computers. People make up their own minds for change, and the the issues that come to the frontlines get there because, guess what, it's common sense that jailing a visitor for breaking the pathetic security protected by a fascist law is wrong.

So what will happen when the same "journalism" that dumbed down generation after generation before the internet moves the bulk of it's weight online? Why should sites like Slashdot, that got where they are through the ingenuity of a few schmucks like you and I, be bought out by a bigger fish? I trust the integrity of this site and the owners, from top to bottom, (I've done my homework), but do you think they could resist a million dollar offer from a big fish in the mainstream media? And I wish I had an answer or an alternative, but I don't because this is what happens when the greedy minority is allowed to lobby on capitol hill while the rest of the country watches breaking news of a shark attack on stations owned completely by that minority. They can piss on the constitution because they own it. They paid their way into deregulation that stood for over 100 years as a shield for democracy against greed and corruption. The biggest mistake of the plutocratic movement was to let the internet slip through, and they're going to correct it.

Call me an extremist, but the way I see it, if we don't succeed in using the internet to get people interested in politics, and ruthlessly protective of their rights -- if the transition to online life doesn't help the people and their elected officials to restore antitrust laws, to denounce the words that gave corporations the rights of a living, breathing person -- if this all, instead, ends in a hostile takeover of the internet by profiteers, then mark my words, the next civil war will be fought between Americans and Corporate Americans. You'll see an end to unions, minimum wage will drop, working conditions will resemble pre-union factories where 1 in 5 workers was dismembered or killed because of a lack of safety requirements. Businesses that grow tired of listening to complaints will build sweatshops. Dissent would be minimal considering that all information and events are under the influence or control of one or two corporations. Believe it or not, because that reality is already in it's early stages today. It's a horrible picture to paint, but it's the logical conclusion to the path we're on. Nobody wants it to happen. Not even the CEO's of corporate america. But business operates like a well-oiled machine when it reaches a certain complexity and size. It's only goal is profit, and it's going to that end whether people like it's methods or not. To make that point; do you think any actual human wakes up in the morning, goes to work at the clothing business they own, and says "I think I'll enslave a few children and construct a sweatshop today." No. They compromise, they convince themselves that it's not as bad as it looks, and the machine continues to operate independently towards it's goal. This brings me back full circle, to the idiocy of deregulation.

(Apologies for the long rant and weird grammar, I got carried away with my ramblings)

Yes, a few sets ARE shipping with built-in HD tuners/decoders. Here's one to start you off with.

Finally, wow! Has someone already transmitted a signal that a particular (functioning) HDTV decoder can't decode? No? Could it be because there IS a standard established for HDTV broadcasts (if you don't want the technical data, here is a FAQ from the FCC about DTV)?

Do YOUR homework, ace modded-up complainer.

"(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the Commission shall not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'. "

AOL, if anyone wants to read the filing available from the FCC is leaning toward the SIMPLE protocol that has come out of one of the IMPP subgroups (spawned groups?) Not Jabber, but since Jabber has publicly stated that they will support the eventual IMPP protocols (or CPIM) it may all be good. Still a lot of undetermineds, of course. And who is the major player they reference?

"'(4) Competitor consideration prohibited: In making the determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the Commission shall not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'. "

`(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the Commission shall not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'.

Slashdot broke the link you supplied (note space in the middle). The correct link is
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/ 1999/nrwl9046.html.

You don't know what you are talking about. The FCC allows up to 1 watt of effective radiated power from the antenna for us to use in the 2.4Ghz band...the wavelan (aka orinoco) transmit only 0.03 watts.

Goto the FCC's link: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/ Notices/1999/fcc99149.txt

Snip:
4. Frequency Hopping Systems. Section 15.247 of the rules permits frequency hopping
spread spectrum systems to operate in the 2.4 GHz band with a maximum output power of 30
dBm (1 watt). The rules specify that frequency hopping systems operating in this spectrum must
use a minimum of 75 hopping channels with each channel having a 20 dB bandwidth not
exceeding 1 MHz. The average time of occupancy on any frequency must not be greater than 0.4
second within a 30 second period.

/snip

BTW, where do you get your $150,000 nonsense? Since when does the FCC have time to bug private citizens unless it is intefering with airport/medical/government communications??? This is why the ham radio freq's have become mostly self-policed. Can you please provide a link to an authortivative source to back up your claim?

Just my $0.02 worth of flame. Sry if I have come on a bit strong. It has just been a long day....don't take it personally.


---

Just enter any callsign you see at this callsign database to find all a poster's personal info.

Bypass the middleman.

--

As per this post:

Let's see how many /. privacy advocates post nearly direct links to their home addresses and birth dates in this article.
Just enter any callsign you see at this callsign database to find all a poster's personal info.

Just thought I'd point out that little security leak to ya.

I won't be posting my callsign here, or on usenet, for many many reasons. I advise other Hams to be just as careful with their callsign as they would their SS number.

Oops.

--

Thank god we have AOL/TW to compete against Microsoft -- they're such a wonderful alternative to an obvious monopoly.

And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.

Thank god we have AOL/TW to compete against Microsoft -- they're such a wonderful alternative to an obvious monopoly.

And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.

Thank god we have AOL/TW to compete against Microsoft -- they're such a wonderful alternative to an obvious monopoly.

And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.

Thank god we have AOL/TW to compete against Microsoft -- they're such a wonderful alternative to an obvious monopoly.

And don't kid yourselves, both Microsoft and AOL/TW are monopolies, despite whatever you might have heard about regulations being wrong, and another form of 'communism', etc. Whatever the rhetoric, the fact is that our founders understood the need for regulations as a protective measure for consumers, and democracy as a whole. You can read about how their concerns were ignored in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when restrictions on mass ownership of news/media outlets were all but erased; here, here, here, and here.

Go read something other than /.
http://www.fcc.gov/3G/

Then go read something about electromagentic waves and how they're used in communication.

Then move to Japan because you're obviously worthless here.

Must be nice that you, and everyone you know, lives in areas where broadband is available. In the Real World, they aren't. Unless you are lucky, or live in a rich suburb, you don't get broadband.

Now, this is an area where I would really like to see some hard numbers provided by a neutral third party. We all know that DSL might not be available even where it is listed as "available"; similarly, cable modem access that is "coming soon" could take weeks or years to arrive. My best guess is that actual availability is not as bad as you suggest. From some recent FCC data, I would guess at an availability rate of between 50% and 70%, although costs might still differ strongly from place to place.

Many small towns have neither cable modem or DSL, as there is no incentive for the companies to upgrade their systems to provide it. I suspect, based on what I saw while living in Utah, that 30 years from now there will still be substantial portions of the country on dial-up.

Small towns, by their very nature, are, well, small. They will never be on the leading edge of anything much, which is of course both a plus and a minus. What I think will be interesting is whether the lack of access will become a material factor in people's relocation decisions in the near future. If it does, we might see some *very* interesting changes in the pattern of urban, suburban, and exurban growth of the last several decades. Population densities have been going way down in many places during the last century as the car has become a dominant transportation mode. It would be interesting if advances in communication technology could reverse that trend.

This complicates competition. DSL CLECs can rent space from the incumbent in the CO to put in their own DLSAMs, but space in the street furniture is too tight to house several competitors' equipment. One answer is to open the data networks in the ATM network that carries the data back to the ISPs' routers, but that was not in the Telecom Act of 1996, which was written before the commercialization of the Internet.

VDSL will have to be deployed this way, since it can only reach 4000 feet. So either DSL competition goes away at that point, or we need a new Telecom Act.

The early adopter in me thinks this is wonderful, and can't wait to buy it. Where's the global-access web-surfing PDAs?

The pragmatist in me realizes we won't see this for many years. How long have we waited for Bluetooth?

The Democrat in me thinks this could bring widespread, afordable telecommunications to the masses, and should be encouraged. What's the problem, FCC, why won't you approve this?

The free-market capitalist in me says this could disrupt the established players in the business and should be watched closely. Who should I buy? Who should I short?

The Republican in me says this would disrupt the established players in many businesses and must be stopped. Why isn't the FCC working to ban this subversive activity?

The cynic in me notes who's in charge now. Guess who will win?

The spectrum shouldn't be sold (to the highest bidder, or any private entity)--if this is allowed, then the U.S. government will have again abdicated its rightful role as steward of the airwaves for the less lofty role of plundering profiteer.

Where have you been? Lately the spectrum has been sold, which was considered an improvement since the previous policy was to give it away free! Indeed, not too long ago (in human years; in political years it was eons ago) the FCC gave away television licenses to anyone with a radio station who was willing to take on the expense of buying a TV transmitter and some cameras, build a studio, etc. In other words, they gave a license to print money to anyone who wanted to buy a printing press.

You're absolutely correct. The FCC should not sell the airwaves to the highest bidder, it should lease them to the highest bidder for a limited time (say, five years), with everyone getting an equal shot at the lease when it expires. As it is now, the "lease" never expires, it's a one-time license fee good for eternity (or the collapse of the U.S. Government, whichever comes first. The collapse of the purchaser does not end the "lease", as the creditors, heirs, successors, buyers, etc. get the license.)

McCaw Cellular paid what many thought were outlandish license fees for their cellular airwaves, which McCaw then sold to AT&T for a rather large fortune. AT&T now enjoy their use for free, for ever (or until they sell them). McCaw now looks like the genius he is, and the FCC look like the fools they are. So Congress told the FCC "Good work, now sell these other companies a similar license to steal for pennies on the dollar." And the FCC complied.

Still, it's a better deal than what our gummint charges to log, mine, or graze cattle on public lands. And it's a blast of fresh air compared to what our new gummint wants to charge oil companies for the right to destroy the Alaskan tundra.

http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm/

Low Power FM by spread spectrum would be nice. Kind of like a VPN via 802.11b wireless but you have micro broadcasting stations every 6 to 8 blocks for good coverage if you're on the highway with a laptop.

This link disappeared from www.fcc.gov's homepage right after Powell, Jr. became chairman. Click on the "More..." link at the bottom of the homepage to find the link for LPFM and keep track of progress in the licensing of this technology.

Just because half of the FCC, the single-source news media and all the other usual gangs of moneyed buffons question the practicality of LPFM doesn't mean we have to.

..

http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/lpfm/

Low Power FM by spread spectrum would be nice. Kind of like a VPN via 802.11b wireless but you have micro broadcasting stations every 6 to 8 blocks for good coverage if you're on the highway with a laptop.

This link disappeared from www.fcc.gov's homepage right after Powell, Jr. became chairman. Click on the "More..." link at the bottom of the homepage to find the link for LPFM and keep track of progress in the licensing of this technology.

Just because half of the FCC, the single-source news media and all the other usual gangs of moneyed buffons question the practicality of LPFM doesn't mean we have to.

..

• This typical news story as seen in the Lexington Herald Leader.
• the Free Radio Berkley page
• The FCC policy page

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

IIRC the FCC uses SAP for their databases.

Should've added that the FCC has their own page on the act, which is more informative and less boring than reading the full text of the act itself. CJR's archives also have a 1997 article reviewing year one of the '96 act.

Well, these FCC people have quite a naughty site themselves!

Just type "fuck" into their site search engine (http://www.fcc.gov/search/wordsearch.html) and look at all the smut you get:

100% da981187.txt (summary)
100% da961858.txt (summary)
98% da002724.txt (summary)
98% da002724.txt (summary)
98% da010537.txt (summary)
98% da010537.txt (summary)
96% fcc98179.txt (summary)
94% da010111.txt (summary)
94% da010111.txt (summary)
94% da990511.txt (summary)
94% da982140.txt (summary)
92% fcc01090.txt (summary)
92% fcc01090.txt (summary)
88% da981566.txt (summary)
68% TV Ratings Proceeding E-Mail Comments(summary)
64% 5006314422.txt (summary)
30% 47cfr73.pdf (summary)
26% 20bip_5a.pdf (summary)
14% c-bip5b.pdf (summary)

And you should see some of this stuff! Try searching for "vibrator". What these guys lack is a sense of irony. :)

Invisible Agent

I suspect that most slashdot readers are generally against censorship. However, informed arguments are much more effective than uninformed flamings. If you care about censorship, go and read the thoughts of one organization whose job it is to implement censorship before posting all the "censorship sucks" replies. (The full policy statement is linked to from the second page above, or you can jump straight to the pdf file using this link.)

The FCC explains why they're in the business of censorship (ans: because there's a federal law that the FCC is not in control of, and Congress instructs FCC to enforce this law), gives examples of the court cases involving the FCC's censorship, and summarizes how the FCC decides if broadcast material violates the federal law.

In a bonus section at the end, two FCC commissioners explain why they support issuing this new policy statement, and a third commissioner explains why she thinks the statement should not be issued.

It's definitely worth reading, if you care about censorship.

(As an example of what's in the document; do you know exactly what the definition of "obscene" is? The definition used by the FCC is that material must satisfy all three of the following:

1. an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
3. the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

the full policy statement can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html

The essential truth here is that AT&T is acting in a way that indicates that they wanted all those people to lose their connectivity. People will have an irrational fear of DSL in general, so they will use cable instead... nevermind that cable is generally not a secure connection, and is inherently less able to guarantee performance levels due to the fact that all their customers share bandwidth. For uses such as telecommuting, IT departments rightfully prefer DSL access.

The cost of allowing a reasonable transition for Northpoint's customers would have been far, far less than what AT&T paid for Northpoint, and the cost of the extra service they provided could have been charged to whatever service they transitioned the line to. Everyone knows that in order to give these users a realistic chance of switching over, they should have been given about a 60 day warning period.

Is it just me, or should the FCC protect consumers better in situations like this by requiring an adequate transition time in such circumstances? Personally, I'd do something... I'd sign a petition or write the FCC (address at bottom of their webpage) so that this kind of rapidfire corporate liquidation doesn't happen again.

From the FCC approval conditions, pages 3-4:

"AOL Time-Warner may not offer an AIHS application that includes the transmission and reception... of one or two-way streaming video communications... beyond those offered in current offerings such as AIM 4.1 or ICQ 2000b, unless and until AOL Time Warner has successfully demonstrated it has complied with one of the following grounds for relief"

To my knowledge, AOL has not broken this condition, and thus is perfectly within their legal rights to block other IM clients.

AOL has been ordered to open the protocol and their servers to either "server-to-server interoperability" or direct retrieval of information by competing clients. I wouldn't say their actions fall within "their rights," then, would you?

This is a part of their merger with Time Warner, and as a matter of fact, AOL has to file a report every 180 days "describing in technical depth, the actions it has taken to achieve interoperability of its IM offerings and others' IM offerings."

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Public_Notices/20 01/fcc01011.pdf

Given AOL Time Warner's likely domination of the potentially competitive business of new, IM-based services, especially advanced, IM-based high-speed services ("AIHS") 5 applications such as videoconferencing, the Commission concluded that a condition to prevent that merger-specific harm was merited. AOL Time Warner may not offer an AIHS application that includes the transmission and reception, utilizing a names and presence directory ("NPD") 6 over the Internet Protocol path of AOL Time Warner broadband facilities, of one- or two-way streaming video communication using NPD protocols - including live images or tape - that are new features, functions, and enhancements beyond those offered in current offerings such as AIM 4.1 or ICQ 2000b, unless and until AOL Time Warner has successfully demonstrated it has complied with one of the following grounds for relief.

--

Actually, you're dead wrong.

AOL has been ordered to open the protocol and their servers to either "server-to-server interoperability" or direct retrieval of information by competing clients. I wouldn't say their actions fall within "their rights," then, would you?

This is a part of their merger with Time Warner, and as a matter of fact, AOL has to file a report every 180 days "describing in technical depth, the actions it has taken to achieve interoperability of its IM offerings and others' IM offerings."

Even more interesting, section 129 of the FCC's order allows for complaints to be filed for non-compliance. These actions are clearly non-compliant, therefore, it would make sense for an interested party to file such a complaint...

---sig---

Two points. First, the AIM Transport for Jabber will possibly have code put in so that the aim.exe can sit beside it and then have complete functionality again. I'm still debating the possible legal problems of that with some people, but I feel fairly sure that if the user downloads the aim.exe themselves, then it should be ok. Next, AOL has every right to protect their network, I even applaud them for doing it, and doing it in such an interesting way, but thinking the merger rulings will help is wrong. Go read the FCC document yourself, pay close attention to pages 4 and 5. Until the conditions are met, more power to them, but I will continue to help in decoding more of the protocol.

--temas
Jabber Developer

It's not DSL. It's MMDS -- Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service.

Sprint Broadband is one of the largest customers of Hybrid Networks Inc.

In fact, there's even an interesting little press release on Hybrid's site regarding the whole deal in Chicago.

This isn't very new to me, as the majority of my work and home bandwidth is provided by a local ISP that has been deploying these systems since the Fall of 1998. As an individual subscriber I've pulled traffic nearing the 8Mbit/sec mark. Yep, that's something a little more than the equivalent of five T-1's.

MMDS has a lot of advantages over your typical "unlicensed" wireless gear operating in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum... namely the fact that MMDS is licensed by the FCC (in the US).

Businesses that build their existance and survival on the fragile structure of "unlicensed" wireless often don't spend the time to properly research what it is that they are getting into... a mess. The first "provider" in an area to deploy "unlicensed" equipment has great success... and then the second "provider" comes along... and things start to slow down a little... and then another provider comes along perhaps... and things start to break (more)...

And then an Amateur Radio Operator/ham comes along and decides to start using the spectrum for Amateur TV, and the FCC comes in and shuts the "providers" down as they are infringing on the rightful license of said ham to use the 2.4GHz spectrum. *poof* :)

Another thing to consider, and one of the other reasons I like my MMDS provider... They don't have that interestingly restrictive TOS that Sprint Broadband has.

It's not DSL. It's MMDS -- Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service.

Sprint Broadband is one of the largest customers of Hybrid Networks Inc.

In fact, there's even an interesting little press release on Hybrid's site regarding the whole deal in Chicago.

This isn't very new to me, as the majority of my work and home bandwidth is provided by a local ISP that has been deploying these systems since the Fall of 1998. As an individual subscriber I've pulled traffic nearing the 8Mbit/sec mark. Yep, that's something a little more than the equivalent of five T-1's.

MMDS has a lot of advantages over your typical "unlicensed" wireless gear operating in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum... namely the fact that MMDS is licensed by the FCC (in the US).

Businesses that build their existance and survival on the fragile structure of "unlicensed" wireless often don't spend the time to properly research what it is that they are getting into... a mess. The first "provider" in an area to deploy "unlicensed" equipment has great success... and then the second "provider" comes along... and things start to slow down a little... and then another provider comes along perhaps... and things start to break (more)...

And then an Amateur Radio Operator/ham comes along and decides to start using the spectrum for Amateur TV, and the FCC comes in and shuts the "providers" down as they are infringing on the rightful license of said ham to use the 2.4GHz spectrum. *poof* :)

Another thing to consider, and one of the other reasons I like my MMDS provider... They don't have that interestingly restrictive TOS that Sprint Broadband has.

The industry is obviously and demonstrably powerful enough to create legislation when the "invisible hand" of the market doesn't do what they want.

Your comment that "it's not like the government is trying to force hardware manufacturers to do this" seems to ignore this obvious trend. Have you forgotten the V-Chip which the FCC now REQUIRES in all TV's larger than 13"?

Actually, that's only partly true (look, I previewed this time! Yay!). temas (one of the Jabber developers) and I went through the document stating all the rules and regulations that AOL has to follow as a result of the merger. The part about IM has been greatly misread by a lot of people. AIM only has to make new "advanced, IM-based high speed services ('AIHS')" open. AIHS services include things such as video conferencing (which is pretty much the only example the document gives). So basically as long as AOL doesn't add video conferencing to AIM, they don't need to tell Jabber squat about how it works, or make any offer of interoperability. However, the moment they have a working implementation of video conferencing, they have to call Jabber and ask where they should send the protocol spec.

You can read a copy of the deal at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Public_Notices/20 01/fcc01011.pdf. Note especially page 3-4, where it talks about the IM service. It's one long sentence so beware.

Shirky isn't referring to services such as San Francisco's Ricochet, a wireless Internet access network provider from San Jose's Metricom. He wants to know whether citizens will be given free or subsidized wireless access, as if it were a municipal utility like water. He muses, "In New York, we have laws that give zoning variances for skyscrapers in return for creating public spaces. These public spaces could easily include 802.11b networks."

A better solution for Mr. Shirky's (slashdot interview) proposal would be to use the adjacent regulated spectrum that is being used for MMDS, a new broadband wireless service that is being rolled out.

The MMDS service occupies the same spectrum as ITFS (warning government website, design will make you cry), a service underutilized by universities to provide public service. The FCC is allowing these licenses to be snatched up by MMDS providers for gaining the licensees much ($40 according to itfs.org) and the public for which the service was created nothing.

Seems to me that putting some real public interest obligations on those licenses in the form of providing public wireless access would be a better use of that spectrum.

if [ -e bombdropping ];
then
mkdir /jail ; chroot /jail deran9ed
echo "it could happen to you too"
else
for i in `find /somewhere/over/the/rainbow -name deran9ed
do
wget -U spooks www.google.com/query?deran9ed
mv $i /jail
done
fi

German Federal Armed Forces banish Microsoft programs from fear of US secret services the Foreign Office and the German Federal Armed Forces safety gaps want to conclude. Instead of American software on the national computers in the future German programs will operate.

In computers, which are used in sensitive areas, no software from Microsoft is to be used anymore. After realizations of German security authorities the American espionage service NSA has encoded data all relevant source codes of the US firm and can read in such a way. In order to protect secrets, the Ministry of Defense sets Siemens and Telekom therefore on encoding techniques of the domestic companies.

The Foreign Office reset meanwhile its plan to introduce video conferences with its representations abroad. Undersecretary of state Gunter Pleuger experienced with a Telekom presentation in Berlin at the beginning of March that all satellite transmission ways for technical reasons run over the American city Denver in the Federal State Colorado.

Pleuger was too uncertain the detour via the USA. " then we can hold our conferences directly in Langley ", spoettelte a Pleuger coworker. In Langley (Virginia) the American secret service CIA resides.

I worked for Covad in a position that gave me a unique perspective in where the company was going and what their business plan was. Fortunately, I got out last year when I saw warning signs, months before the axe fell. What has happened is just a symptom of a fundamental shift in the marketplace.

Covad was the first major CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) in the DSL marketplace. CLECS were essentially created by the Telecommunications Act of '96. Basically, the Telecommunication Act allowed two main changes in the law:
1> It allowed for local phone companies to offer long distance service.
2> It allowed for CLECs to exist, essentially using phone company lines for a fair market value. It made the right for phone companies to offer long distance contingent on them opening their lines up fairly for CLECs to do their job.

Covad started in the San Francisco bay area, fertile ground for a DSL company. They were first in the market, with about a 6 months lead on Northpoint and Rhythms when it came to their number of subscribers and their ability to roll out services effectively. They have done a good job of maintaining that lead, too.

Originally, DSL companies competed for business locally... but when the glut of investment capital came rolling in, it became obvious that there was a huge demand for broadband and not enough supply. The way that DSL companies dealt with this was to spend billions on rolling out their networks and putting equipment in as many central offices as possible. In many cases, these central office deployments were redundant... Small marketplaces would have the choice between 2-3 CLECS, plus the local phone company in order to get DSL.

Why were companies like Covad willing to put equipment in locations that wouldn't return a profit anytime soon? Because, in a bull marketplace with a glut of investment capital, what was going on was essentially a landgrab. The first person to "drive their stake" into a marketplace and to get their message across would be the dominant player in that market... eventually. How could they be sure? Because, once people have DSL, they don't want to go back to dialup, and they rarely ever switch DSL providers.

As we all know, the stock market soured and the venture capital money has dried up for the time being. Now, the stakes are higher for these companies... they either have to achieve profitability before their warchests run out (say, 18 months for Covad and Rhythms)or they have to sell out all or part of their business to their current phone company competitors.

When I was at Covad last year, I could tell you... they brought on a ton of people, constantly. They developed an absolutely annoying, gluttenous amount of middle management in no time flat. The people who really knew anything were stuck in meetings all day and weren't able to get anything done, and there were a lot of new people who were very inefficient, often causing more work than they were performing.

In other words, I'm glad that Covad has laid off so many of these new workers. I'm glad that they're willing to pull the plug on deadbeat customers... and I'm glad they are willing to remove equipment from locations that just don't pay. I am certain that Covad will be the first CLEC to achieve profitability... and profitability will give them the creds to get back in the favor of investors and VC's... the first to reach profitability gets to grow again, essentially.

Not that Covad won't grow this year... it will concentrate on what gets them the bucks: business installs easy residential customer self-installs. If you want to be profitable in a short amount of time with a DSL company, you can't be rolling out a install truck a half-dozen times just to set up a line for a customer paying $45 a month. That's why self-installs are so important. Covad has great testing and line qualifying equipment. They can easily determine whether a residential customer's line is able to be handled with a self-install or not. If it is, they do the deal, if not... let the local phone companies pay to fix up their crappy lines! Covad has been very successful with their self-install program, which gives them an edge over Rhythms in this respect.

Covad also is and has been very successful with business customers. Business customers are very important, and the DSL lines offered to business customers bring in more revenue and more profit than residential customers. If you want to maximize profitability, you have to concentrate on businesses first.

What are the longterm ramifications of the DSL CLECS falling on hard times? Probably this:
1> Some CLECs won't survive. Some will sell out to local phone companies, too.
2> Phone companies will get a larger proportion of the DSL marketplace than they might otherwise have gotten.
3> In the short term, there will be less of an incentive for broadband providers to compete with each other on a price level. Don't expect price cuts anytime soon on broadband. Demand still outstrips supply.
4> DSL will take somewhat longer to catch up with the growth of cable-based broadband in the U.S. All statistics still point to DSL access growing faster than cable broadband access, however. Cable-based broadband is also expensive to roll out service for, and money is tight everywhere. Eventually, DSL should outstrip cable in the marketplace. Let me make one thing clear... there will be no winner in the broadband marketplace until there is a clearly superior technology. Neither DSL or Cable will "win"... but we will see profitable companies in DSL, cable, and wireless.

What should be the biggest concern about this issue for consumers? Ultimately, it's all about choice. Choice means competition and lower prices, after all. It's that much more important to pay attention to the decisions in front of the FCC and Congress and to make sure that the interests of consumers are met and that the marketplace is kept friendly for CLECs and, ultimately, for competition. Normal people can and do influence FCC decisions, and it is worthwhile to point out that some of the worst decisions by the FCC are those that only get a handful of responses from the public. Want to make your opinion actually count? Don't just voice it here. Go to http://www.fcc.gov, keep up on what's REALLY happening, and let your voice be heard on the issues there. The last I heard, it was your government, after all...

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking says "Comments . . . can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to [this site]. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.

OK, I think, why would they WANT more than one copy of an electronic submission?

Then there's this bit of doubletalk:

"If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption."

Um, THEY wrote it, don't THEY know whether "this proceeding" has multiple docket numbers?

Thre are pages and pages of this kind of doubletalk, such as I've never read in my life. And if you don't submit your comments correctly, I suppose they count for as much as, well, maybe as much as if you do submit them correctly.

How's this for a comment: fold that "electronic proposal" down to sharp pointy corners . . .

No matter who invented it, I am definitely thankful for it.

Radio has an intimacy, based on all of the associations humans have with the voice and the spoken word, that television and the Net can't surpass. It is also a low-cost technology that anyone can learn to use for communication.

I can listen to National Public Radio and hear all the news I want without having to train my eyes on one location, or hear (many) ads. I especially like the BBC world service when I am pulling an allnighter.

I participated in a live webradio broadcast at the Independent Media Center in Cincinnatti, and people from Prague, Los Angeles and London tuned in.

This is a cheap, ubiquitous technology that is easy to learn to use. I also had a low power (40 watt) FM transmitter with a few co-conspirators, we attached a 20 foot antenna to a 6 story building and reached 3 counties.

The FCC which has long kept the airwaves private, "legalized" low power FM but made the paperwork and technological threshholds insurmountable for community and home users. We want real free radio.

Tahing it further, the FCC screwed shit up royally when it allowed the same person to own radio stations and TV stations in the same market. Monopoly ownership breeds..well, what you probably have on most of your dial-

Top forty, Christian, country, and crap.

Patronize independently owned, low power, nonprofit and community radio and cable access TV in your town.

No matter who invented it, I am definitely thankful for it.

Radio has an intimacy, based on all of the associations humans have with the voice and the spoken word, that television and the Net can't surpass. It is also a low-cost technology that anyone can learn to use for communication.

I can listen to National Public Radio and hear all the news I want without having to train my eyes on one location, or hear (many) ads. I especially like the BBC world service when I am pulling an allnighter.

I participated in a live webradio broadcast at the Independent Media Center in Cincinnatti, and people from Prague, Los Angeles and London tuned in.

This is a cheap, ubiquitous technology that is easy to learn to use. I also had a low power (40 watt) FM transmitter with a few co-conspirators, we attached a 20 foot antenna to a 6 story building and reached 3 counties.

The FCC which has long kept the airwaves private, "legalized" low power FM but made the paperwork and technological threshholds insurmountable for community and home users. We want real free radio.

Tahing it further, the FCC screwed shit up royally when it allowed the same person to own radio stations and TV stations in the same market. Monopoly ownership breeds..well, what you probably have on most of your dial-

Top forty, Christian, country, and crap.

Patronize independently owned, low power, nonprofit and community radio and cable access TV in your town.

This original question needs to be moderated down. In addition to the FTC given their approval on the merger, the FCC was consulted as well. The FCC's position on the merger is a matter of public record. Just a quick search on the FCC home page turned up this link. I'm sure there's more out there...

The Common Carrier Bureau's industry analysis reports show excellent growth in CLEC line count, but the recent bankruptcies among DLECs indicates a serious rupture in competitive markets. What should the new administration do to keep telecom markets open to choice among carriers that compete on the basis of excellent products and support?

Specifically, should telecom competition be separated from the ownership and maintenance of last-mile facilities? Should every carrier be a CLEC?

My cable company says Dynamic Feedback Arrangement Scrambling Technique (DFAST) came from Congress and to talk to them. In FCC info it looks like DFAST came from the cable industries' Cable Labs (FCC PDF doc 6512258522). Where did DFAST come from and what is its status?

What concerns me even more than this is as I understand it, the DTV that the FCC has mandated that we migrate to will be, by law, encoded in pay-to-license formats. (Dolby Digital and MPEG.) Currently, NTSC television is (to my knowledge) license free. This means all sorts of nasty private corporate interests between people who want to make stuff and the Evil Companies. ("No, it won't run Ogg or on Linux.")

Most companies abide by these rules, so saying "please put me on your do-not-call list" very effectively cuts down on calls, and can be done without being rude to the operators who probably don't like calling you any more than you like being called by them.

Doesn't apply to charities, doesn't apply at work, won't bring about world peace, but it's something.

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Public_Notices/20 01/fcc01011.txt: D. Technical Performance: All contracts between AOL Time Warner and unaffiliated ISPs for access to Time Warner's cable systems shall contain a clause warranting that, to the extent AOL Time Warner provides any Quality of Service mechanisms, caching services, technical support customer services, multicasting capabilities, address management and other technical functions of the cable system that affect customers' experience with their ISP, AOL Time Warner must provide them in a manner that does not discriminate in favor of AOL Time Warner's affiliated ISPs on the basis of affiliation.

They will avoid 2.4 GHz, not because of the resonant frequency of water (Which it is NOT, check this link). When the frequency was chosen for microwave ovens, they chose 2.45 GHz because they knew that it would interfere with other forms of communication, and they wanted to keep the interferers all in one (relatively unused at the time) place. Enough RF at virtually any frequency will heat things.

There are other frequencies used for heating things, they are in what is called ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands. These bands are a bit more "anything goes" than other frequencies. The FCC rules are in this hefty tome. I'll leave it up to you to find the applicable parts. That's why Bluetooth and 802.11 work in the 2.4 GHz region. They have more free reign for what you can do, but you also have to accept interference without complaint.

I was actually interested in posting a similar article today, but I knew it wasn't much of a post...I'm x-mas geek shopping and a cell phone with pda features is at the top of my list. Unfortunately it looks I'm going to be out of luck for x-mas. I've ruled out the handspring phone as being too expensive and too bulky. Plus as mentioned before it's not going to be available across the country. I think CDMA is a better option in the US at least for now.

Here's what I'm interested in: the Kyocera Smartphone Series - QCP 6035 that is supposed to be available early next year. It's CDMA with palm 3.5 with 8 mb.

Here are some articles about it:

News article about it here and here (with some pics) and here.

Here's what they filed with the FCC here. The FCC has some nice pics of the guts of the pda phone. (Side note: I figured all you hardware geeks would like this)

Ok, here's what I want: a cell phone with PDA, pager features, 8 mb of ram for under 600 bucks and is small.

I'm not going to get that with the handspring phone. It's going to cost me 800 plus after taxes to get that and Kyocera says they are going to be selling theirs for under 800 and it's going to be smaller.

If you don't know about Kyocera, they bought Qualcomm CDMA phone business which included the out of date PDQ phone. Here's a link to their site

Ok...that's all I know....does anyone on /. know of a palm OS cell phone deal that is or is going to be better?