Slashdot Mirror

One thing that I don't know about-- at the proposed rulemaking announcement, one of the commissioners made a statement:

My second concern relates to the impact that creation of low power service may have on potential conversion to terrestrial digital radio service. I understand that there have been promising advances of late that can enable current radio operations to convert to digital transmission technology "in band on channel." Converting to digital transmission technology could improve the quality of radio service and potentially increase spectral efficiency. These are very real benefits and I would be concerned if authorizing some or all of these low power radio services would make in band on channel conversion to digital radio unworkable for existing terrestrial services.

The player that's always mentioned in this is USA Digital Radio, LLC. I didn't find any statements on their web site about the low-power FM stuff, so maybe it's not such a big deal.

Does anyone here know anything more about this technology?

One thing that I don't know about-- at the proposed rulemaking announcement, one of the commissioners made a statement:

My second concern relates to the impact that creation of low power service may have on potential conversion to terrestrial digital radio service. I understand that there have been promising advances of late that can enable current radio operations to convert to digital transmission technology "in band on channel." Converting to digital transmission technology could improve the quality of radio service and potentially increase spectral efficiency. These are very real benefits and I would be concerned if authorizing some or all of these low power radio services would make in band on channel conversion to digital radio unworkable for existing terrestrial services.

The player that's always mentioned in this is USA Digital Radio, LLC. I didn't find any statements on their web site about the low-power FM stuff, so maybe it's not such a big deal.

Does anyone here know anything more about this technology?

You seem to have upped the number of major networks from 3 to a whopping 5... and I can't seem to figure out what the 5th is... the WB? Do you feel that you are effectively *defending* what the media would have us believe is diversity? The FCC regulation you speak of is clearly outlined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, in which the federal government considerably relaxed ownership coverage rules (hint: this means *fewer* viewpoints hitting the 'airwaves'). Anyway, you might be surprised to discover just how few control what so many see. Visit the Fairness In Accuracy and Reporting web site for some interesting insight into how incestuous the media actually is. And if you can get your hands on FAIR director Jeff Cohen's book "Unreliable Sources", do so. It's somewhat dated (early 90s?), but still a must read. I know I must sound like some sort of conspiracy theorist, but FAIR does their homework and presents all of the facts. Once you read up, you'll find yourself asking "why would the media possibly work any other way?" with, unfortunately, no good answer. It's all about money, which is good... but at the cost of honesty, which is not. Sorta creates paralles with the LinuxOne thread, although this makes LinuxOne seem not-so-scary.

Federal Communications Commission, a US Gov't agency involved in the regulation of Communications including particularly licenseing of Radio and TV operators and stations. More importantly, they're involved in regulating telephone and related technologies, including universial access and broadband access.

See www.fcc.gov

Here's some more...

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

Click here for the link

It's all a conspiracy I tell you! Everyone is involved. The Friendly Candy Company and the American Radio Relay League. They cooked this up just so those paper pushers at the FCC could have something to do, and so the ARRL could sell more study guides! Although I would recommend that everyone get the Handbook for Radio Amateurs, a.k.a. The Bible of All Applied Electronics. KB9UTQ

I am not a Masslinux customer, but if I were, this is what I would do:

1) If I were a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I would contact the Department of Telecommunication and Energy. Calling them on the phone at (800) 392-6066, their complaint line, is probably the best approach. My question would be whether they are the correct place to launch an investigation at the state level.

2) I would call my (Massachusetts) assemblyman and ask for assistance. This will probably require a letter sent by US Mail documenting the loss of service and the lack of business-to-customer communication.

3) Regardless of where I lived and worked, I would contact the Federal Communications Commission and ask which federal agency ought to be involved in an investigation. I would go to the Federal Government because they have some jurisdiction over anyone participating in interstate commerce.

No one should accept heresay and innuendo. These people represented themselves as a business and they took payment from customers for services. Masslinux customers have a right to a complete and thorough explanation, including a determination of ultimate responsibility for the disruption.

Anyone who accepts less because there is no recourse in the "New Ecomomy" doesn't understand their rights as American citizens.

I wish I didn't feel this way, but part of me thinks that the community should stop meaningless political actions like boycotting Amazon.com and start using its passion and determination to get to the bottom of this incredible situation.
--

Dave Aiello

right here: http://gullfoss.fcc.gov:8080/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/o et/forms/misc/Grant_For m.hts?application_id=93726

My fax machine got spammed yesterday for the first time. I remembered that, unlike email spam, fax spam is explicitly illegal, so I went looking around to try and see what to do about this. I found this document on the FCC site.

The bottom line is, you're screwed.

While it is illegal for someone to spam your fax machine, there is realistically not a damned thing you can do about it. You can personally take them to small-claims court for up to $500, but that would take forever, and so few people will ever actually do that that spammers will feel free to do their thing with impunity.

They do mention an ``opt out'' list you can have yourself added to, but of it they say:

DMA commercially publishes and markets lists of consumers who do not wish to receive solicitation calls.

Which sounds to me like the DMA sells this list to spammers. So we're to believe that there are spammers out there who would pay money for a list of people who do not want to receive their services. Huh? Forgive me if I have a hard time seeing the motivation there.

Carryover from that old FCC rule about using copper lines at their full potential (not the actual rule, but a ref to it: http://w ww.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/19 98/nrcc8062.html). "FCC rules limiting the amount of signal power that can be transmitted through the telephone network currently inhibit such products from operating at their full potential."

This is a Good Sign.

In September, the FCC ruled that competitive exchange carriers must be provided access to subloops.

English translation: all of us unfortunate souls who live over 9k feet from a central office a) soon will qualify for DSL service and b) will have a choice of DSL providers.

With the removal of rental fees the value proposition of providing DSL improves, increasing competition. Hopefully this will get the incumbent and competitive carriers off their butts and providing DSL to anyone who wants it (i.e. ME).

Imagine a world without websites where you enter your phone number and wait two weeks to be turned down for service. Do we dare to dream that by then they'll have worked out the bugs in provisioning?

Maybe the next century won't be so bad after all...

First, let me congratulate the IETF on Doing the Right Thing.

Now let me try to explain why anyone would even think of adding wiretap capability to an Internet protocol, what it means, and what we can do about it.

Why wiretap? The FCC and other global regulatory agencies require the ability to wiretap voice networks. This is known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). If you want more info check out the FCC site .

Ok, great, this is a done deal with the telephone network. But what the hell does this have to do with the IETF?

Voice over IP technologies have effectively made any IP network into a telephone network. As carriers start to deploy VoIP solutions using their own IP based networks, they still must support federal regulations such as CALEA. So it makes sense for the IETF to add CALEA support into VoIP protocols, right?

I think not.

What would it mean if we started applying the rules and regulations of the telephony network to an IP network? Would we end up applying all of them? Where is the line between a telephony carrier's IP network and the Internet? Where is the line between wiretapping voice and wiretapping data?

The line is where we draw it.

Unfortunately, anyone hoping to sell equipment to telephony carriers has to provide CALEA support. This is why router companies have to add CALEA functionality to their products. At least that (hopefully) limits the effective jurisdiction of wiretapping to carrier networks. We absolutely do not have to subject the Internet to these regulations.

What can we do? We can petition and support the IETF in NOT adding wiretap capability to Internet protocols. We can use PGP or other encryption to keep our communications secure, and show the futility of wiretapping on the net. We can write to politicians, and the FCC, and tell them what we think.

I like to think of it as the separation of church and state. If we're going to have freedom online, we need to prevent the regulations of other media (telephone, television, radio) from creeping in.

Thanks to the IETF and all of you for drawing the line, and defending it.

Before you start spreading rumors, you may want to check your facts. Take a look at this link at the FCC's website concerning CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) if you want to find out what is really going on.
---

Here're the FCC's Cable Services Bureau Fact Sheets page and the Placement of DBS, MMDS, and Television Broadcast Antennas fact sheet.

A qoute: On November 20, 1998, the Commission amended the rule so that it will also apply to rental property where the renter has exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio. The effective date of the amended rule is January 22, 1999

Hope this helps!

Here're the FCC's Cable Services Bureau Fact Sheets page and the Placement of DBS, MMDS, and Television Broadcast Antennas fact sheet.

A qoute: On November 20, 1998, the Commission amended the rule so that it will also apply to rental property where the renter has exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio. The effective date of the amended rule is January 22, 1999

Hope this helps!

I hang out at Digital Theater to keep up with Digital TV happenings. They've had many discussions on this topic, and recommend reading the FCC report, DTV REPORT ON COFDM AND 8-VSB PERFORMANCE. The summary of which is

Both 8-VSB and COFDM have certain advantages and disadvantages. Both systems are capable of providing viable DTV service. We do not find that at this time the performance potential of either system is clearly superior in all respects. Based on our discussions with CE manufacturers and recent announcements by semiconductor manufacturers, we believe that reasonable solutions to the multipath issue and indoor reception problems raised by Sinclair are being developed and should be available in the near future. We also believe that COFDM's benefits for large single frequency network operation and mobile service may not be important or meaningful given the current structure of broadcasting in the United States. Further, we believe that 8-VSB has some advantages with regard to data rate, spectrum efficiency and transmitter power requirements. Accordingly, at this time, we find that the relative benefits of changing the DTV transmission to COFDM are unclear and would not outweigh the costs of making such a revision. We therefore recommend that the ATSC 8-VSB standard be retained.

8-VSB was choosen over COFDM during the 9 year period in which the DTV standards were created. One of the major benefits of 8-VSB is it covers a much larger area which is a very important benefit in the US. It also carries more data than COFDM, which means a better picture can be received. In Europe, where everything is much closer together and multipath is a bigger problem, COFDM was choosen as their broadcast standard.

The 8-VSB reception problems shown by Sincliar were exhibited in 1st generation HDTV sets. The manufacturers of the sets have already come up with better ways of cancelling out the multi-path interference that plays havoc with HDTV reception. The newest sets work much better than the 1st generation, and it is expected this trend will continue.

The general consensus at Digital Theater is that Sinclair is not pursuing this for the benefit of us, but for their own benefit as they stand to gain a lot financially if the US changes to COFDM.

• Discussions at
• Digitial Theater pertaining to this topic
• Class Action Lawsuit Against Sinclair Broadcasting
• 8VSB vs COFDM
• Potentially good news for those with HDTV reception problems
• Has anyone bought a HDTV yet?
• My Visit from Panasonic re: HDTV

I thought the FCC was here to really protect the consumer not make the already rich local phone companies even richer. Hell they already charge LD companies to connect to the network thus passing it on to the consumer in the form of a Carrier Line Charge. Anyway don't get me started on my local phone company. You would think that the amount of money they make they could hire someone with a brain.

(sorry about the double post, things went funky)

this is slightly skewed on Topic

Visit FCC Commisioner Kennard's Home Page

This guy has fought hard to try and level the comm. playing field in the deregulated environment (an impossible task if you ask me). There is a form to e-mail him (which I did yesterday about the proposed Viacom/CBS merger-I felt pairing MTV/VH1 with the second largest radio network will severely limit music choice/variety), I don't know if it gets there and he reads it, but he is more 'Net savvy than other politicians.

I wish Katz had mentioned some of the 'Net legislation that politicos have tried to push through (hatch-feinstein anti-drug linking law) to illustrate their overall cluelessness. The 'Net will change politics, hopefully as much as it is changing business (guy runs for senate out of his garage), and I think it will, mainly 'cause the vast majority of us geeks want it that way.

Now is when we must fight the hardest as the old guard tries to use its power to help uphold the status quo, even as more and more people see how corrupt and inefficient that quo is. Knowledge to the people, Power to the people, that's what the 'Net brings. (now if we can just get everyone to use Linux as the default OS, they'll see what freedom is, and the price you have to pay... constant vigilance)

this is slightly skewed on Topic
CC Commisioner Kennard's Home Page

This guy has fought hard to try and level the
Visit Fcomm. playing field in the deregulated environment (an impossible task if you ask me). There is a form to e-mail him (which I did yesterday about the proposed Viacom/CBS merger-I felt pairing MTV/VH1 with the second largest radio network will severely limit music choice/variety), I don't know if it gets there and he reads it, but he is more 'Net savvy than other politicians.

I wish Katz had mentioned some of the 'Net legislation that politicos have tried to push through (hatch-feinstein anti-drug linking law) to illustrate their overall cluelessness. The 'Net will change politics, hopefully as much as it is changing business (guy runs for senate out of his garage), and I think it will, mainly 'cause the vast majority of us geeks want it that way.

Now is when we must fight the hardest as the old guard tries to use its power to help uphold the status quo, even as more and more people see how corrupt and inefficient that quo is. Knowledge to the people, Power to the people, that's what the 'Net brings. (now if we can just get everyone to use Linux as the default OS, they'll see what freedom is, and the price you have to pay... constant vigilance)

Ok, it's time to get on my soapbox.

I don't understand why this lady chose to let her son watch the show if she believed it to be so violent. She is one of the people of this world that ignore their children and let the television babysit them, then later wonder why their kids are so messed up. If she had watched the show just once she would see the disclaimer in the beginning that the show isn't fit to be viewed by anyone.

I realize that parents aren't always home, so if they want to prevent children from watching these shows they should go out and buy a tv with the new V-Chips and block out unwanted programming. All the information about V-Chips can be found here or a parent could call toll-free at 1-877-2 VCHIP-TV for more information.

FCC regultions specifically prohibit the use of amateur radio frequencies for the use of broadcasting. Or conducting business. Amateur radio is centered around public service and advancing the radio art.

If you think you will get away with it, there are hams who have made it a hobby tracking down illegal sources of RF emission.

However, the FCC does allow other non-amateur frequencies for the purposes you mention. The CFR (code of federal regulations) Title 47 part 15 tells you what is available. There are frequencies at 1.9GHz, 2.4GHz, 5.5GHz that you could possibly use for the aforementioned purposes. However, you will need (and want) to use spread spectrum modulation. Also, you are only allowed one watt of transmitted power. They do not want you interfering with other Government agencies already using these frequencies for other purposes. While Scully and Mulder will not come knocking on your door, their buddies will, wanting to know why you're interfering with their local radionavigation beacons. You will not believe how picky they can be.

You will see what I mean as you read over the rules and regs. If it is an electron and vibrates, there is a rule for it. Up to 300 GHz, which by my calculations is where you find heat, and of course the visible spectrum after that.

www.fcc.gov is the place to start if you want more details. I have to hand it to them, they have done good job at putting the CFR online. BTW, part 97 covers amateur radio operations so you can take a look at them too.

Besides the regulations, microwaves are technically challenging. While the challenge is interesting to many in the amateur radio community, historically there has not been alot of 'plug and go' solutions for microwaves. It was always a 'roll your own' kind of proposition. I thought it more plumbing with some of the fancy waveguides around. However, there is a lot of surplus stuff that is hitting the market now so that will change.

Distance wise, I think you will max out at 3 miles. with clever receiver and antenna design you could do 10 miles. Just hope it doesn't snow, as water is very asorbant to these particular frequencies. (also another reason for low power, what is your body made up of???).

My personal choice if I were you would be light communications. You can have all the bandwith you could want and be a pioneer at the same time. While coventional wisdom suggests that this would not be very reliable, recent product offerings by Lucent technologies suggest that there may be ways around them. It would be interesting to try, lots of room for experimentation, economical, and straightforward to do.

Phill Kennedy NA7E

There IS no serious discussion about this. There is not and has never been. I'm shocked this would even be posted on here, thirty seconds of searching on the Internet turns up the fact that its a hoax. Its a version of the FCC modem tax hoax that also has been kicking around for over ten years.

Most of the e-mail forwards going around the Internet refer to Bill "602P" when they're talking about it.

The FCC actually put out a statement on it, the hoax had spread so far:

http://www.fcc.g ov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html

I hope this will stop the waste on here even discussing it. Maybe Andover should hire someone to check up on these silly stories on here before getting people all worked up.

The originator of this hoax was a lawyer here in the U.S. known for starting these hoaxes, unfortunately pre-coffee I can't think of his name, although anyone curious could probably find it with a few minutes searching on dejanews.com

For some reason, slashdot is mangling the URL when I paste it into an anchor tag. The URL is https://gullfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ecfs/ comsrch.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_pro ceeding=99-25 (with no space in the middle of "proceeding"). You can also get there by entering "99-25" into the Proceeding field of the form you get at https://gullfoss.fcc. gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ecfs/comsrch.hts.
--

A couple of other links: You can search the FCC's database for already filed comments in this proceeding (there are 974 of them as I write this), and file comments from your web browser.

One thing to note when commenting to the FCC: The FCC is especially unswayed by the kind of rhetoric folks around here tend to sling. Go read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO, and then be even more reserved than it recommends.
--

1) Microwaves, as defined by the NTIA, range from about 100 MHz to 300 GHz ( US Frequency Allocation Chart). Most people think of microwaves as starting at 1 GHz, though (and hardly ever think of 300 GHz). Seriously, though, there's no hard limit in the continuum.

2) Microwave ovens operate at around 2.45 GHz, the resonance of water molecules.

3) The Wired article mentioned neither the carrier frequency nor the energy densities at which the tests were conducted. This kind of vagueness I find unforgivable, because it leads to the sort of vague discussions we're having here on /..

4) I could not find the particular study refered to in the Wired article posted on the WTR website, but I did find statements and information about RF radiation and tumor promotion. One in particular from April 30, 1997, refers to a study where rats developed lymphoma at a rate twice the control group. This study was conducted with pulsed RF at 900 MHz, at ``levels similar to those from wireless digital phones.''

5) The field strength just outside a 300 mW AMPS cellular phone (say, right next to your ear) is around 5 to 15 mW/cm^2, depending how close you wedge the phone to your head. But that's just my back-of-the-envelope calculation. See the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 and supplements for more on human RF exposure guidlines.

Anyway, there is a big difference between exposing a bird to an RF field and saying there's ``no effect'' dues to heating, and exposing a living thing to RF and asking if there's an increased chance of any kind of long or short-term health effect. As a wireless engineer, I personally have a vested interest in knowing the effects. I sure hope there are none, but what am I going to do if there are? Are the risks of health problems too great to ethically push wireless as a viable consumer technology? Can I still feel morally superior to engineers working on missles and bombs?

As a first step, I'll continue to hold off getting a cell phone. I'll also probably stay away from Bluetooth products as well, since they're right in the microwave oven band and because Bluetooth radios might be clipped onto various parts of my body (BodyLAN). What next? Stop working on 5 GHz WLAN because the components are ``too close'' to humans? What is ``too close''? If wireless is the next new thing, is it the next new thing to kill us, too?

A definitive answer is needed. The effects almost certainly vary with frequency (microwave ovens don't use 900 MHZ for a reason). Once the effects are known, then perhaps we can decide what acceptable risk is.

There are a number of new regulations which amateurs are supposed to follow when setting up their antenna systems to help limit RF exposure to themselves and others. I can also vaguely remember an article in QST (the journal of the American Radio Relay League) some years back that discussed the RF exposure problems with 2M (144 Mhz) handheld transceivers.

If you go to the ARRL web page ARRL homepage and do a search on RF Exposure, you'll find some interesting links. There is also some information at the FCCs homepage if you search on the same subject.

Well as far as it goes for me, I find myself buying more music as a result of mp3. I'll find a single song, or listen to mp3spy, and realize I haven't heard their stuff before and really like them. I bought four albums as a direct result of this last week. I would not have bought these if it wasn't for being able to hear mp3's of them. Recoil, Curve, Placebo, Legendary Pink Dots, Einsturzende Neubauten, I never hear any of these on the local radio, or anything like them for that matter.

My friend ken is an example of the person who incessantly searches ftp & web sites for mp3's. He needs to write a new CD about every 2-3 months. How has this changed his music buying habits you ask? Well he probably buys five or six cd's a year, the same as before. The artists aren't losing any cash from him.

As far as declining sales in any particular age group, it probably has more to do with how corporate rock has sucked the life out of the music industry. Corporate radio has almost completely removed any choice you might have from the equation. Almost all the station follow a top 40 format and replay their song list at least 3 times a day. Hopefully the FCC will go through with their Low Power FM Radio Broadcasting plan so we can have decent radio available.

Legally speaking, no one with any satellite dish can receive Network Programming (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, WB). The exception is if you cannot receive a adequate signal via antenna from a local carrier, in which case you can apply for a waiver.

If you're interested in knowing more (and the truth vs rumor), look at the folliwing website.

Yes, there are people getting network over satellite. The reason is the local carrier for each network in each market is responsible for enforcing the ruling. Someone may think they have the system beat but if the local carriers decide to cut you off they can and will.

How do I know? I work for a TV station that agressively enforces that ruling (we turn down about 100 waiver requests a day). Why do we do it? because we pay CBS alot of money to carry their signal locally and exclusively. If the networks ever decide to give their product away then we'll be more than happy to drop it.

P.S. The rumor that 'I have an RV' will work as an excuse is crap, unless you can show it to us.

Well, we do have the FCC ( Federal Communications Commission), which requires broadcast licensees to act in their narrow notion of the "public interest" (none of Carlin's Seven Dirty Words, strict limits on use of digital or encrypted broadcasts and of course power).

Don't just call your state's Public Service Commission. It's darned important you raise polite hell about BellSouth with the PSC, but don't just do it with them.

You also want to talk to the FCC and possibly the FTC too. Several reasons why...

The FCC can force change nationwide or at the least across BellSouth territory; a PSC can only affect change in one state.

If you contact the FCC as well, they can establish that BellSouth has a pattern of not only anticompetitive behaviour, but also of not serving in the public interest.

The FCC has an increasing number of complaints against BellSouth to begin with and is already investigating them.

The FCC has the right to revoke BellSouth's common carrier status (roughly equivalent to revoking their "license" to run a phone company) if BellSouth refuses to cooperate.

I'm even going to go so far as to say that you should complain to your PSC and the FCC and FTC even if you are NOT trying to get ADSL coverage from BellSouth. BellSouth is a company that indulges in anticompetitive tactics, and deserves to be spanked soundly for many reasons...

I would complain if you fall in ANY of the above categories and are in BellSouth country:

If you have attempted to obtain ADSL service only to be told your OS is not officially supported and told that you cannot connect to the network as a result.

If you have attempted to obtain ADSL service in an area where BellSouth is offering it (see if your area is covered or planned for coverage by hitting BellSouth's webpage) and are told that because you live in an apartment or are told for other reasons that ADSL is not available.

If you have inquired about ADSL from Bellsouth only to be told it is at some other expected time in future and the launch date keeps being pushed back.

If you have been quoted anything at all above ~$50-100/month for ADSL service. (BellSouth has often charged exorbitant prices for ADSL, assuming you can even get it; the planned price in Louisville is something like $400 installation and roughly $300/month metered.)

If you work for a telco and have attempted to sell leased line service for businesses, only to have BellSouth sell you lines at an actual profit to BellSouth and at such a markup as to make it impossible for your company to compete in terms of pricing.

If you have attempted to buy ISDN service through BellSouth and are not in Tennessee. (Costs for ISDN service in most of BellSouth country are literally so expensive that a fractional T1 line is cheaper.)

If you have attempted to buy ISDN service through BellSouth only to be told it is not available in your area because you are too far from the switching station or given any other reason.

If you are a BellSouth customer, in an area where BellSouth is offering both local and LD services (or, for that matter, local and/or LD and/or data services such as bellsouth.net or paging) and there are no local dialing providers at all. (It is illegal under the Telecommunications Act for BellSouth to offer LD or data services in any local market it services where competition does not exist for local dialup. THE FCC NEEDS TO BE TOLD IF THIS IS HAPPENING WHERE YOU LIVE.)

If you are in BellSouth territory, BellSouth offers LD and/or data services (such as bellsouth.net or paging) and there are no competitors that are as cheap or cheaper than BellSouth. (Again, they CANNOT sell LD or data services till local phone service competition exists.)

If you have been forced to buy T1 service from BellSouth or been forced to buy package deals from BellSouth for services such as caller ID or call forwarding. (There have been reports that folks who have tried to buy ADSL from BellSouth have been told ADSL cannot be installed nor can ISDN, and they have been pressured to buy a T1 line instead. Bellsouth makes its Big Money on T1 lines...BellSouth also has the habit of pricing optional services such as caller ID and call waiting so high that the mere combination of a regular phone line, CID, and call waiting is literally MORE EXPENSIVE than a $35/month package deal that comes with more services that they want to sell.)

BellSouth needs spanking on basic principle. Slashdot the hell out of the PSCs, the FCC, and the FTC and let them know just what you think of BellSouth's horrid service...best case, BellSouth is forced to clean up its act. Worst case, BellSouth loses its "phone company" license and someone more competent moves in like Unidial...hell, even US Worst would be better (at least you can actually GET AND AFFORD ADSL and/or ISDN).

Last night it was not responding. Today, there's a goofy looking logo.

http://www.fcc.org

I'm glad I'm not waiting for a new call sign. Yessir.


Uhh, I dunno what fcc.org is, but if you're thinking it's the Federal Communications Commission's site, you're a bit confused.


Try http://www.fcc.gov


-=OG=-

They all have nice public email addresses!

Why did you not goto the link and READ the article the FCC posted???

Go to this URL:http://w ww.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/19 99/nrcc9014.html

You will see this in the text: "This means that those consumers who continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so."

READ and LEARN about what you posting before you look like a bunch of idiots.

http://www.fcc.gov /Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Factsheets/nominute.html

- Sam Trenholme

To quote From http://w ww.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/19 99/nrcc9014.html FCC ADOPTS ORDER ADDRESSING DIAL-UP INTERNET TRAFFIC

This means that those consumers who continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so.


Generally, new entrants to the local telephone business contend that calls to ISPs are local traffic and, therefore, subject to reciprocal compensation. Incumbent local telephone companies, on the other hand, generally contend that calls to ISPs are interstate in nature and that they are, therefore, beyond the scope of reciprocal compensation agreements.


This is the second story in a row that has been posted to /. that is substantially wrong.

Where it seems dangerous is that (quoting) "a state commission, in the exercise of its statutory authority under sections 251 and 252 of the Act to arbitrate interconnection disputes, may have imposed reciprocal compensation obligations for this traffic." And check this out: "Resolution of failures to reach agreement on inter-carrier compensation for interstate ISP-bound traffic then would occur through arbitrations conducted by state commissions, which are appealable to federal district courts.

Just what we need. A bunch of bureaucrats and attorneys haggling over what is essentially the future of the Internet here in the US.

Finally, it also acknowledged that there needs to be a better federal law governing the Internet than the one they are operating under. So it seems to me that aside from the obvious rant to the FCC, we Internet users and all of the ISP's here in the USA really need to concentrate their lobbying efforts and resources on making sure that local public service commissions and Congress do the right thing for the little folks for a change.

Let's all work this one to death, folks.

In response to requests by carriers that the Commission clarify how local telephone companies should compensate one another for delivering traffic to Internet service providers, the Commission today concluded that carriers are bound by their existing interconnection agreements, as interpreted by state commissions, and thus are subject to reciprocal compensation obligations to the extent provided by such agreements or as determined by state commissions. The Commission declared that Internet traffic is jurisdictionally mixed and appears to be largely interstate in nature. But the decision preserves the rule that exempts the Internet and other information services from interstate access charges. This means that those consumers who continue to access the Internet by dialing a seven-digit number will not incur long distance charges when they do so. In a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission also asked for comment on proposals governing future carrier-to-carrier compensation for handling this traffic.

This doesn't sound like a decision on long-distance from a user's point of view. It sounds like the old argument about under what circumstances, when a caller on Telco A's network places a call to someone served by Telco B, B owes A for routing the call to them. Also, according to the ruling, the existing agreements on reciprocal compensation still apply and the state PUC still has the final say in the matter. Sounds like a lot of uproar over very little.

Yes in 1990 it was a legend. Today it is reality follow the link to the fcc yourself and read the action in their own words. The Horse's Mouth

From the FCC Web site:

The Chairman and the
Commissioners invite you to contact them via Email at the following addresses:
Chairman William Kennard: wkennard@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: hfurchtg@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtristan@fcc.gov

From the FCC Web site:

The Chairman and the
Commissioners invite you to contact them via Email at the following addresses:
Chairman William Kennard: wkennard@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: hfurchtg@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtristan@fcc.gov

From the FCC Web site:

The Chairman and the
Commissioners invite you to contact them via Email at the following addresses:
Chairman William Kennard: wkennard@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: hfurchtg@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtristan@fcc.gov

From the FCC Web site:

The Chairman and the
Commissioners invite you to contact them via Email at the following addresses:
Chairman William Kennard: wkennard@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: hfurchtg@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtristan@fcc.gov

From the FCC Web site:

The Chairman and the
Commissioners invite you to contact them via Email at the following addresses:
Chairman William Kennard: wkennard@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sness@fcc.gov
Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth: hfurchtg@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Gloria Tristani: gtristan@fcc.gov

Well, folks, this may come as somewhat of a surprise, but there's a HOWTO at http://metalab.unc.edu/LD P/HOWTO/Plug-and-Play-HOWTO.html on Plug-and-Play.

Woah. That was hard.

And, yes, surprisingly, the FCC allows you to look up FCC ID's at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid/.

Also, RPTI's support webpage is here.