Slashdot Mirror

Let's say you are a small phone company. All of your customers have phone numbers like this: 527-XXXX. Even if you only have a thousand customers, no one else is assigned the rest of those 527 numbers.

You can find out more information from the The North American Numbering Council

The FCC is collecting comments right now on how cable modems should be regulated. Important issues, such as whether cable modem operators are common carriers, and whether cable modem systems must connect to multiple ISPs on an equal basis, will be decided. The comment period is for 45 days, starting September 28, 2000, so time is running out.

• Read the FCC press release.
• Read the FCC Notice of Inquiry (PDF), which details the questions the FCC wants comments on.
• Read comments by others.
  (Click above, then type 00-185 into the "Proceeding" box on the search form, then click on "Retrieve").
• Finally, file your own comments online. The system accepts either short text notes or full filings in Word, PDF, Word Perfect, etc. As usual, replies should directly address the FCC's questions.
  (Specify proceeding 00-185 when filing a comment.)

The FCC is collecting comments right now on how cable modems should be regulated. Important issues, such as whether cable modem operators are common carriers, and whether cable modem systems must connect to multiple ISPs on an equal basis, will be decided. The comment period is for 45 days, starting September 28, 2000, so time is running out.

• Read the FCC press release.
• Read the FCC Notice of Inquiry (PDF), which details the questions the FCC wants comments on.
• Read comments by others.
  (Click above, then type 00-185 into the "Proceeding" box on the search form, then click on "Retrieve").
• Finally, file your own comments online. The system accepts either short text notes or full filings in Word, PDF, Word Perfect, etc. As usual, replies should directly address the FCC's questions.
  (Specify proceeding 00-185 when filing a comment.)

The FCC is collecting comments right now on how cable modems should be regulated. Important issues, such as whether cable modem operators are common carriers, and whether cable modem systems must connect to multiple ISPs on an equal basis, will be decided. The comment period is for 45 days, starting September 28, 2000, so time is running out.

• Read the FCC press release.
• Read the FCC Notice of Inquiry (PDF), which details the questions the FCC wants comments on.
• Read comments by others.
  (Click above, then type 00-185 into the "Proceeding" box on the search form, then click on "Retrieve").
• Finally, file your own comments online. The system accepts either short text notes or full filings in Word, PDF, Word Perfect, etc. As usual, replies should directly address the FCC's questions.
  (Specify proceeding 00-185 when filing a comment.)

The FCC is collecting comments right now on how cable modems should be regulated. Important issues, such as whether cable modem operators are common carriers, and whether cable modem systems must connect to multiple ISPs on an equal basis, will be decided. The comment period is for 45 days, starting September 28, 2000, so time is running out.

• Read the FCC press release.
• Read the FCC Notice of Inquiry (PDF), which details the questions the FCC wants comments on.
• Read comments by others.
  (Click above, then type 00-185 into the "Proceeding" box on the search form, then click on "Retrieve").
• Finally, file your own comments online. The system accepts either short text notes or full filings in Word, PDF, Word Perfect, etc. As usual, replies should directly address the FCC's questions.
  (Specify proceeding 00-185 when filing a comment.)

...gets my vote for the most far-impacting of all recent technology-vs-law items. Yes, the CDA portion of it got the most attention, but by far the other aspects of the law are the more important and far-reaching, as it fundamentally changed the nature of the communications industry in the USA.

Find it here.

I don't mean to be US-centric, but I'm not familiar with other countries' laws enough to suggest examples therein.

-Erik

• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factshee ts/slamming.pdf .

Click for the FCC .PDF on slamming.

and for a more general FCC page on slamming

try this.

Click for the FCC .PDF on slamming.

and for a more general FCC page on slamming

try this.

The FCC has a consumer information site at http://www.fcc.gov/cib/. It includes information on slamming and other FCC related consumer information topics.

PUC - Public Utilities Commission
TCPA - Telephone Consumer Protecton Act
LART - Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool


Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

See the FCC document (in PDF) on Slamming. To sum it up, you are not responsible for any charges for being switched to the slammer or back to your preferred provider. You are only responsible for charges from the slammer if you used their service for more than 30 days, and even then, if they are charging more than the service you were switched from, they cannot collect more than your previous company would for the services you used.

You should be able to prevent slamming by asking the local phone company to place a PIC freeze on your line. Make sure they freeze both in-state and out-of-state long distance. I say "should" because the last time I removed the freeze, they did not ask for any information that would confirm my identity.

Telling business not to call you, as an earlier respondent mentioned, is covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

As former FCC Chair Reed Hundt indicated, Gore deserves a portion of the credit:
"On a personal note, many years ago I had a conversation with then-Senator Al Gore about his wish to see a schoolgirl in Carthage, Tennessee be able to learn from the limitless resources of the Library of Congress, without being barred by time, distance, and lack of money from such opportunities. He explained to me -- and this was long before the Internet was invented -- that fiber optic cable would make the connection between the schoolgirl and a bright future.

From this conversation came this Commission's desire to include classroom connections as an essential goal of universal service. President Clinton in several State of the Union speeches and many other appearances mobilized a national commitment to this goal. And as Vice President, Al Gore has never let a week, or perhaps a day, go by without working to bring to every schoolchild the opportunity to learn on the information highway -- a term he coined.

Thanks to the untiring efforts of Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Exxon, Kerrey, Hollings, Congressman Markey, Secretary of Education Riley, and many others the Commission was given the legislative mandate to fund connections to every one of two million classrooms in all 100,000 schools in our country. School groups from all over the country supported these congressional initiatives and then pursued their implementation in our rules.

-- Steve

I was looking at the fcc web page, and I was only able to find two stories that mentioned copy protection in Digital TV's. Both say that some measure of copy protection is not against the rules, but not that they are required. CAn anyone find something different? Links below.
First Story
Second Press Release

Eduardo Ramirez

I was looking at the fcc web page, and I was only able to find two stories that mentioned copy protection in Digital TV's. Both say that some measure of copy protection is not against the rules, but not that they are required. CAn anyone find something different? Links below.
First Story
Second Press Release

Eduardo Ramirez

http://www.fcc.gov/contact.html

I sent them an Email, so should you! Let them know that this is a bad thing!

Please keep the emails civil though.

This really had me worried, so I went to the FCC site to read what they actually ruled, and I am now convinced that the linked article above is REALLY screwed up, freely mixing comments and opinions about two rulings that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Here is the summary of what the FCC actually said concerning copy protection:

Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:

In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.

With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.

Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.

Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).

FCC Press Release

So the FCC clearly IS concerned with ensuring that "reasonable" home copying is possible, although it isn't clear from this summary what EXACTLY that means. It is also not clear to me after reading this whether the quote from Jeff Joseph is complaining about the inclusion of copy protection itself, or whether it is complaining about the loss of backward compatibility. The latter is a problem, but allowing copy protection into some devices was already decided. I'm not sure exactly what the copy protection is allowed to copy, but this ruling was covering the narrow question of exactly where in the digital decoding process that copy protection has to go.

It seems that the original linked article was mixing comments concerning TWO FCC releases; this copy protection rule clarification, and another one regarding uniform labelling rules that make it clear what "Digital Cable Ready" means: FCC ADOPTS RULES FOR LABELING OF DTV RECEIVERS. THIS is what Commissioner Ness was complaining about, not about the copy protection ruling.

In summary, this article is highly confused about the events it is reporting.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the potential for abuse with embedded copy protection, just that I'm not sure this article had a clue. I'm also pretty certain that the FCC is not "trying to get around AHRA" as some others have said. I'd just like to understand what is really going on here, and not jump to outrageous conclusions.

This really had me worried, so I went to the FCC site to read what they actually ruled, and I am now convinced that the linked article above is REALLY screwed up, freely mixing comments and opinions about two rulings that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with each other

Here is the summary of what the FCC actually said concerning copy protection:

Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:

In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.

With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.

Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.

Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).

FCC Press Release

So the FCC clearly IS concerned with ensuring that "reasonable" home copying is possible, although it isn't clear from this summary what EXACTLY that means. It is also not clear to me after reading this whether the quote from Jeff Joseph is complaining about the inclusion of copy protection itself, or whether it is complaining about the loss of backward compatibility. The latter is a problem, but allowing copy protection into some devices was already decided. I'm not sure exactly what the copy protection is allowed to copy, but this ruling was covering the narrow question of exactly where in the digital decoding process that copy protection has to go.

It seems that the original linked article was mixing comments concerning TWO FCC releases; this copy protection rule clarification, and another one regarding uniform labelling rules that make it clear what "Digital Cable Ready" means: FCC ADOPTS RULES FOR LABELING OF DTV RECEIVERS. THIS is what Commissioner Ness was complaining about, not about the copy protection ruling.

In summary, this article is highly confused about the events it is reporting.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with the potential for abuse with embedded copy protection, just that I'm not sure this article had a clue. I'm also pretty certain that the FCC is not "trying to get around AHRA" as some others have said. I'd just like to understand what is really going on here, and not jump to outrageous conclusions.

I don't know why, but this depresses me more than anything I've seen recently on the subject.

• Copy-protected VHS tapes didn't seem to matter. You could still copy them, but copying them left a tell-tale tag. Of course, it was only illegal to make illegal copies and then rent them out for money, so no harm done. Fair use is preserved, and people trying to make a quick buck off of the work of others get what they deserve.
• Copy protection on DAT recorders really sucked, but it still didn't seem all that bad. Maybe that was just because I wasn't a musician or musical artist.
• SDMI really rankled me, but hey, it doesn't stop me from recording my *own* MP3s. And now that things like Ogg Vorbis are coming out, this is really irrelevant.
• Encyrpted DVDs aren't great, but somehow I don't mind that as much. You paid for it, you play it, you can't copy it. I really don't like it, but somehow it seems like something we could overcome.
• The DMCA really really sucks, but that one seems destined to be destroyed in the Supreme Court. I'm pretty confident.
• But when the federal government starts mandating total copy protection of media broadcast on the open spectrum, the property of the people, I feel much more betrayed than I did before. The Executive branch, much harder to control than the legislative, is taking away an entire chunk of property that used to belong to the people as a whole, and giving it wholesale to a small handful of very large companies.

Interestingly, reminding myself that I don't watch TV doesn't seem to help. The FCC is overstepping its bounds, here, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.

Submit your comments via the two step process into the FCC's automated system for recieving comments from the public -- ECFS:

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

Submitting your comments is apparently a two step process -- the first is to fill out the form with your personal information (the "proceeding" heading at the title should have 00-67 put in there)

Next, you use your browser to send the file. I put my comments in ASCII text, and pretty much took the boilerplate letter from here:

http://congress.nw.dc.us/cgi-bin/oo_compose.pl?dir =hrrc&comptype=agency&agency=1 12&message=101

and added my signature to the bottom.

Then there's a confirmation page, and your comments are on file with the FCC.

(I think this will work better than bulkmailing the inboxes of the FCC comissioners, which will likely be tuned out.)

Full instructions on how to file are available through the FCC's site as well as the special interest group already cited. The already submitted comments are reachable by pressing the search button. The MPAA's most recent comments basically say ``trust us, we'll let people copy appropriate things.'' Um, sure.

Jason

Full instructions on how to file are available through the FCC's site as well as the special interest group already cited. The already submitted comments are reachable by pressing the search button. The MPAA's most recent comments basically say ``trust us, we'll let people copy appropriate things.'' Um, sure.

Jason

Full instructions on how to file are available through the FCC's site as well as the special interest group already cited. The already submitted comments are reachable by pressing the search button. The MPAA's most recent comments basically say ``trust us, we'll let people copy appropriate things.'' Um, sure.

Jason

Full instructions on how to file are available through the FCC's site as well as the special interest group already cited. The already submitted comments are reachable by pressing the search button. The MPAA's most recent comments basically say ``trust us, we'll let people copy appropriate things.'' Um, sure.

Jason

Full instructions on how to file are available through the FCC's site as well as the special interest group already cited. The already submitted comments are reachable by pressing the search button. The MPAA's most recent comments basically say ``trust us, we'll let people copy appropriate things.'' Um, sure.

Jason

This arrives to you (and all) kinda late. We still own the airwaves; Licenses to use same are what's for sale.

Here's the relevant link at the FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/cib/handbook.html#mmb

The rest of the FCC's site is sweet, too (if one is .gov doc inclined).

-EC

Perhaps a desperate attempt from the MPAA? As an amateur radio hobbyist (KE4QKT) I can only say that the FCC seems to be concerned with emissions compliance and bandwidth allocation. This doesn't fall anywhere near those categories.

But browsing the FCC's major initiatives page shows that the FCC does handle issues not necessarily related to communication equipment (telecommunication mergers, for example.)

I particularly found the blurb on the "What We're All About" handbook interesting:

What We're All About: a Consumer's Guide to the FCC. We're about communications! Whether you are listening to the radio, watching TV, talking on the phone, using your pager - you're involved in communications. We, at the Federal Communications Commission, are working to make sure that the nation's communications systems are operating in your best interest.

Sounds pretty general to me.

According to the Home Redording Rights Coalition homepage (the 'defendants' in the case) at HRRC.org, the case number is 00-67, ""

This link should take you to the Electronic Comment File Submission for 00-67 where you type your complaint.

The HRRC has provided a form letter here Please remember to add a personalized .sig!

Get even more educated! read A summary on fair use w/r/t this case, and A PDF of the HRRC comments on the issue.

FCC regs require cell phones to be able to call 911 even when there is no service. (Naturally, cell phone service providers don't play this up in their advertising.) Therefore, you should be able to pick up a phone at a thrift store, etc. and use it to call 911.

The problem is how to empirically test this. The way I would do it is to carry it around, wait for a moron speeder weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating, and cutting people off (mean arrival time about 5 minutes around here), and use the phone to call 911 to turn in the moron's plate, location, and direction of travel. Once you've done that, you will know for sure it works, and maybe have gotten the aforementioned moron a well-deserved traffic ticket.

Bill - aka taniwha
--

This exceprt from the second link might save you some time.

"Recording Intrastate Conversations Questions or complaints about recording intrastate conversations (calls placed within the same state) should be addressed to the state public utility commission for that state. You can contact your local or state consumer office to obtain the telephone number and address for your state public utility commission. This information also may be listed in the government section of your telephone directory."

And this excerpt from the first link might save ya some time also. This is in reference to interstate and foreign calls.

"The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate or foreign telephone conversations. These types of conversations may not be recorded unless the use of a recording device is:
preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use."

I really don't know if this refers to everybody or only business that might desire to record their phone calls, so don't take the information I have linked to as gospel either. But it is straight from the FCC website. The search results I got were many and confusing, so I don't know if there is any more information on the site about this. Many of the pages are just like 7458273.txt etc. so their might be more there. Just my $0.02

This exceprt from the second link might save you some time.

"Recording Intrastate Conversations Questions or complaints about recording intrastate conversations (calls placed within the same state) should be addressed to the state public utility commission for that state. You can contact your local or state consumer office to obtain the telephone number and address for your state public utility commission. This information also may be listed in the government section of your telephone directory."

And this excerpt from the first link might save ya some time also. This is in reference to interstate and foreign calls.

"The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate or foreign telephone conversations. These types of conversations may not be recorded unless the use of a recording device is:
preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use."

I really don't know if this refers to everybody or only business that might desire to record their phone calls, so don't take the information I have linked to as gospel either. But it is straight from the FCC website. The search results I got were many and confusing, so I don't know if there is any more information on the site about this. Many of the pages are just like 7458273.txt etc. so their might be more there. Just my $0.02

This exceprt from the second link might save you some time.

"Recording Intrastate Conversations Questions or complaints about recording intrastate conversations (calls placed within the same state) should be addressed to the state public utility commission for that state. You can contact your local or state consumer office to obtain the telephone number and address for your state public utility commission. This information also may be listed in the government section of your telephone directory."

And this excerpt from the first link might save ya some time also. This is in reference to interstate and foreign calls.

"The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate or foreign telephone conversations. These types of conversations may not be recorded unless the use of a recording device is:
preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use."

I really don't know if this refers to everybody or only business that might desire to record their phone calls, so don't take the information I have linked to as gospel either. But it is straight from the FCC website. The search results I got were many and confusing, so I don't know if there is any more information on the site about this. Many of the pages are just like 7458273.txt etc. so their might be more there. Just my $0.02

This exceprt from the second link might save you some time.

"Recording Intrastate Conversations Questions or complaints about recording intrastate conversations (calls placed within the same state) should be addressed to the state public utility commission for that state. You can contact your local or state consumer office to obtain the telephone number and address for your state public utility commission. This information also may be listed in the government section of your telephone directory."

And this excerpt from the first link might save ya some time also. This is in reference to interstate and foreign calls.

"The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate or foreign telephone conversations. These types of conversations may not be recorded unless the use of a recording device is:
preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a beep tone, which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use."

I really don't know if this refers to everybody or only business that might desire to record their phone calls, so don't take the information I have linked to as gospel either. But it is straight from the FCC website. The search results I got were many and confusing, so I don't know if there is any more information on the site about this. Many of the pages are just like 7458273.txt etc. so their might be more there. Just my $0.02

This page has a bunch of info on the subject. Relevent only to those in the US. This is on low power radio in general. Basically, pirate radio is still illegal. This is a site that talks about LPFM. It is available in Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. This is a list of when other states come online.

Unfortunately, when I checked a few months ago, it was still fairly difficult to get a license and do what you want with it. These LPFM stations are supposed to be public in nature. They can't be for profit (I know it's cheap, but electricity costs money). As others have stated, there isn't much bandwidth left in many parts of the country. If you want to play commercial music, you still have to pay those bastards. I imagine that many of the big broadcasters have tried to suck up the available channels.

The other problem that I haven't seen mentioned is that the big stations frequently trample on the spectrum of the smaller ones. The father of a friend of mine ran a small station. He was constantly in court against one of the larger stations. There was too much frequency bleed into his area. But the fees imposed by the FCC were far lower than the increase in revenue the large station received by having a larger broadcast area. So they paid the lawyers for a little while, then paid the fine, and did it all over again.

Hope some of these links help.

This page has a bunch of info on the subject. Relevent only to those in the US. This is on low power radio in general. Basically, pirate radio is still illegal. This is a site that talks about LPFM. It is available in Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. This is a list of when other states come online.

Unfortunately, when I checked a few months ago, it was still fairly difficult to get a license and do what you want with it. These LPFM stations are supposed to be public in nature. They can't be for profit (I know it's cheap, but electricity costs money). As others have stated, there isn't much bandwidth left in many parts of the country. If you want to play commercial music, you still have to pay those bastards. I imagine that many of the big broadcasters have tried to suck up the available channels.

The other problem that I haven't seen mentioned is that the big stations frequently trample on the spectrum of the smaller ones. The father of a friend of mine ran a small station. He was constantly in court against one of the larger stations. There was too much frequency bleed into his area. But the fees imposed by the FCC were far lower than the increase in revenue the large station received by having a larger broadcast area. So they paid the lawyers for a little while, then paid the fine, and did it all over again.

Hope some of these links help.

This page has a bunch of info on the subject. Relevent only to those in the US. This is on low power radio in general. Basically, pirate radio is still illegal. This is a site that talks about LPFM. It is available in Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. This is a list of when other states come online.

Unfortunately, when I checked a few months ago, it was still fairly difficult to get a license and do what you want with it. These LPFM stations are supposed to be public in nature. They can't be for profit (I know it's cheap, but electricity costs money). As others have stated, there isn't much bandwidth left in many parts of the country. If you want to play commercial music, you still have to pay those bastards. I imagine that many of the big broadcasters have tried to suck up the available channels.

The other problem that I haven't seen mentioned is that the big stations frequently trample on the spectrum of the smaller ones. The father of a friend of mine ran a small station. He was constantly in court against one of the larger stations. There was too much frequency bleed into his area. But the fees imposed by the FCC were far lower than the increase in revenue the large station received by having a larger broadcast area. So they paid the lawyers for a little while, then paid the fine, and did it all over again.

Hope some of these links help.

This page has a bunch of info on the subject. Relevent only to those in the US. This is on low power radio in general. Basically, pirate radio is still illegal. This is a site that talks about LPFM. It is available in Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. This is a list of when other states come online.

Unfortunately, when I checked a few months ago, it was still fairly difficult to get a license and do what you want with it. These LPFM stations are supposed to be public in nature. They can't be for profit (I know it's cheap, but electricity costs money). As others have stated, there isn't much bandwidth left in many parts of the country. If you want to play commercial music, you still have to pay those bastards. I imagine that many of the big broadcasters have tried to suck up the available channels.

The other problem that I haven't seen mentioned is that the big stations frequently trample on the spectrum of the smaller ones. The father of a friend of mine ran a small station. He was constantly in court against one of the larger stations. There was too much frequency bleed into his area. But the fees imposed by the FCC were far lower than the increase in revenue the large station received by having a larger broadcast area. So they paid the lawyers for a little while, then paid the fine, and did it all over again.

Hope some of these links help.

No, no. That's the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. You want the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. They both have the same acronym.

The United States Telephone Association has a CALEA Compliance Manual available. $35 to USTA members. $2000 to non-members.

The FCC's CALEA page has links to the relevant regulations. That's a good place to start.

The copy-protection mess is so bad that the new generation of cable set-top boxes won't talk properly to digital TV monitors. The FCC is trying to get both sides together on this.

The FCC has made LPFM (Low Power FM) legal, but it is under attack by the NAB. While the cost for the transmitter and antenna is not bad, ~$2500, the other costs associated with running a station and the difficulty of managing it can prevent folks from getting involved. Enter Open Source: we can create the rest of the radio station based on models of distributed communication and cooperation established on the Internet. Making it possible for people to speak their mind to the community and have the community interact with the station via the Internet. Technologies like FreeNet make it possible to share resources (music and information) so members of the radio station can easily produce the local content required by the LPFM license. Sharing the software to do this makes it easier for groups to slip out from under the corporate thumb.

The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis.

Hey, didja visit their website...hmmm. it changes,...more material. Anyway, check some of my old posts on this. Their old site (it has changed over the last week) had a link to a quick description of "Works for Hire" it was the first link of press releases. A quick search on their new side didn't turn it up, but I'm sure it's around.

PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them.

Yes, and if you think $5,000 is the actual donation, you're still smoking $3 crack.

Hey, I found this on thier new site.

As with most new technologies, the Internet doesn't just draw outside the lines of the conventional music industry - it offers the opportunity for truly revolutionary changes. But even in this new digital world, artists and record companies still have - and deserve - the right to protect their music. Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace such as copyright, and several new measures were enacted in the last few years to address issues that could not previously have been identified. This section reviews the legal issues surrounding the downloading and webcasting of music.

"WE deserve the right to innovate." Where have I heard that argument before..."Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace (here's a quick example, for ya') such as copyright." This page looks like it should be run by the FCC or Congress not the RIAA, who's running music anyway? (BTW, I want to applaud Kennard for his struggle. That guys taking a lot of shit everytime he want to share the airwaves or do anything much at all. Read up on LPFM for the details of the most recent struggle.)

Anyway, I'm still working on my rebuttal, keep an Eye on the Free Media Headling for details.

However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.

This makes me think you are a troll, or not reading your own posts.


--

Your do-not-call request should stop all calls from the person or entity placing the call. It should also stop calls from affiliated entities where, due to the identification of the caller and the product being advertised, you would reasonably expect that the request applies to affiliated entities.

If I read that correctly, then, for example, AT&T Long distance and AT&T Wireless can reasonably be considered an affiliated entity.
----------

• FCC Home Page
• What you can do about unsolicited telephone marketing calls and faxes.

----------

• FCC Home Page
• What you can do about unsolicited telephone marketing calls and faxes.

----------

--

The FCC has explicitly refrained from classifying ISPs as common carriers. See OPP Working Paper No. 31, The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet.

Unless the rules have changed, the FCC prohibits telephone aggregators from blocking "950" and "800" access to long distance carriers. The definition of aggregators include hotels and motels, hospitals, universities, airports, gas stations, pay telephone owners, and others. The FCC Report and Order can be read here.

I submtted this as an article, but it hasn't surfaced yet, so here's the dirt: The FCC has legalized micro-broadcasting for stations with maximum power levels of 10 watts and 100 watts. The 10 watt stations would reach an area with a radius of between one and two miles, the 100 watt stations would reach an area with a radius of approximately three and a half miles. For the first couple of years the licenses will go exclusively to locals. And they'll never go to commercial entities. They say they'll begin taking applications in the next couple of months. The official FCC statement is up at The FCC website.
________________________________