Slashdot Mirror

I was under the impression that those covenants were unenforceable, as the FCC has direct jurisdiction over all consumer communications equipment and ordinances.

The OTARD rule that was passed in 1996 which preempts local government/HOA regulations only applies to video reception, not RF comms in general.

Universal Internet access is a superset of universal payphone access, being a more generic communication method; all places that previously had payphones as a result of the universal service obligation necessarily would have internet access, since it's the new universal service obligation; and federal subsidized cell phone plans already exist in the US and include broadband as a support service. Your argument from incredulity is moot.

Rural phone/internet service infrastructure is funded by a tax collected on all phone lines.

> No one is "Defining ethernet as broadband".

Here's the FCC announcement where they said any connection greater than 25 Mbps one way and 3 Mbps the other is a broadband connection:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

Obviously at 100 Mbps, that includes ethernet. So yes, the FCC has declared that Ethernet is broadband.

Yet it continues to be baseband, whether the FCC likes it or not.

As someone who helped put together one of the biggest filings with the FCC on this matter, with 260+ other people...

http://fqcodel.bufferbloat.net......

(in addition to 1300? 1700? filings from other orgs)

And later met in person with many of the top people there:
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filin...

I am inclined to put this result in the "win" column, provisionally.

June 2 came and went, tp-link's router firmware returned to field upgradable, and other manufacturers did nothing to make flashing other firmwares any harder than it already was. Hopefully, our arguments buttressed the legal case ongoing at the time against tplink (I knew there was one, but not against whom, or over what, I hope to get more details).

This does not mean the war is won, however. Certainly binary blob firmware that completely controls the radio remains a problem - but progress is being made with the very thin firmware in the 802.11ac mt76 chipset, I am not aware of 5ghz ath9k chips requiring blobs, and other binary only firmwares are improving to support APIs that fq_codel on wifi needs.
http://blog.cerowrt.org/post/f...

(Recently a few new *major* chipsets had wifi drivers submitted to the linux kernel, but I haven't looked at what, exactly the firmware controls. The state of most wifi drivers and firmware is thoroughly depressing - and a very smart and fast co-processor is seemingly needed to run at very high rates)

Five things I learned from this exercise:

1) If a legalistic solution can be vague, it will be. It then can be spun many ways for many audiences. Read Ed Bernays.
Still, sometimes what is said publicly, continues to matter, and the FCC has said some very nice things.

2) The FCC was not the enemy, but a harried organization attempting to fulfill its mandates. As minimally outlined, their problem was the FAA complaining about wifi interference with weather radars. The first solution was overbroad. They have a much better understanding of the roles of open source, third party firmware now - after the keruffle - of the usefulness of user control, better security, and more frequent updates.

The FCC has WAY bigger problems than linux wifi. The number of wireless capable devices requiring certification and testing is skyrocketing, among other things.

https://twitter.com/FCC is a good source for the FCC's other concerns.

3) If you really want attention in D.C., it is a good idea to make a good argument, with a lot of well known people, file it somewhere inside the agency's process, and then issue (buy) a press release, and make the biggest stink you can.
As it turned out many of the recommendations we made above cannot be implemented inside the FCC's mandates, but the FTCs.

4) Chipmakers can now no longer hide behind an argument that the FCC will not let them open up their firmware.

5) The best "proof of the pudding" I can think of would be to push through a new product with much more or entirely open wifi firmware through the FCC processes, using the CRDA library to enforce the rules. Lining up a vendor willing to try that has so far not happened, although I expected a few mt76 chipsets to enter the US by now, I have not been actively watching their RSS feed for progress.

All in all, honestly, I do think we moved the dial a few notches in the right direction, and I'm going to sleep pretty well tonight.

If you read far enough into what the FCC has actually required TP-Link to do you'll quickly realize this is worse for free and open source software than TP-Link locking down its routers. Go look at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... (the settlement PDF links to this as a source document). In fine print:

"the Commission required . . . device software that controls the RF parameters that ensure compliance with the Commission’s technical rules for preventing harmful interference must be secured. The purpose . . . is to prevent modifications to the software that could, for example, . . . enable tuning to unauthorized frequencies, increased power above authorized levels, etc. The rule is not intended to prevent or inhibit modification of any other software or firmware in the device, such as software modifications to improve performance, configure RF networks or improve cybersecurity.”.

What this means is that the community won't be able to add features like mesh networking support to modern 802.11ac wireless firmware components (I should also point out that we don't even have source code for any 802.11ac wifi firmware... and the people trying to get it are being hindered by these FCC rule changes.. I know. I'm one of these people.). The reason we have great support for Atheros 802.11n chipsets is explicitly because the community has had access to critical bits of code. This code has now been moved to the wireless firmware which is *LOCKED DOWN*.

So no this is NOT good news. It's actually creating a security threat because we will be prevented by gaining access to the complete set of source code running on our devices.

Read the whole document (which is what I quoted), not just the bits you like.

The part you quoted was just an introductory statement, it has no content.

Yes, read the whole document, including the hyperlinked order and consent decree at the bottom.

What makes you think the FCC has even the slightest authority to demand that a manufacturer allow open source, especially for an unlicensed product like a WiFi router?

The fact that the FCC has the authority to levy much larger fines, and thus the ability to ask for the manufacturer to agree to other actions that further their policy objectives in lieu of the larger fine.

Also, I actually read the consent decree:

Sec. 8
As part of the Compliance Plan, TP-Link also agrees to take the steps set forth herein to support the development of software by third-parties, including open-source software,
for use with its routers, which comply with the U-NII security requirements.

Sec. 15(a)(iv):
TP-Link, working with TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd., will investigate for certain of its router models the development of U-NII security solutions
that would allow for the use of third-party firmware with its devices while meeting the Commission's U-NII security requirements and maintaining the
integrity of critical radio parameters. As part of this effort, TP-Link, working with TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd., will cooperate and share information
with interested developers of third-party software and chipset manufacturers.
Nothing in the foregoing is intended to limit or affect the ability of TP-Link or TP-Link Technologies CO., Ltd.: (a) to assess, including by requiring
demonstration by any such third-party software developer, whether the developer's proposed designs will prevent access to the frequency or power
level protocols in TP-Link devices and otherwise comply with the U-NII security requirements, and (b) to select, in its sole discretion, particular
chipsets, that it will use in the manufacture of its devices.

Open source mentioned, mandatory language, part of the Compliance Plan, and enforced by a Compliance Monitor (sec 17). Like I said, you're simply not looking at the right document, or the right portion of it. It's required.

The Official FCC announcement suggests that there is that requirement and that you're simply not looking at the right document, or the right portion of it:

"TP-Link has also agreed to work with the open-source community and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers to enable consumers to install third-party firmware on their Wi-Fi routers."

Put some teeth into the do-not-call list:

Upgrade callerID to use ANI or some other tech to prevent it from being spoofed or blocked; so we can find the bastards.

If you can figure out a technical way to do that without interfering with the legitimate reasons for spoofing Caller ID that works reliably, go for it. Get a patent, then lobby Congress to make its use mandatory.

Good luck on that.

Remove the exemption for charity and political fundraisers and pollsters.

The reason those exemptions exist is that SCOTUS case law suggests - very strongly - that not including them would make the law unconstitutional. So good luck with that, too. (I agree they should be illegal, too, but they're not.)

Remove the "existing relationship" loophole so that when you add your number the calls STOP unless you explicitly exempt them (And that exemption should be revocable.).

From what I read, that's been done, as of last year with the new rules from the FCC. From https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/202873880-Rules-and-Resources-for-Dealing-with-Unwanted-Calls-and-Texts:

An existing commercial relationship does not constitute permission to be robocalled or texted.

Consumers can take back their permission to be called or texted in any reasonable way. A calling company cannot require someone to fill out a form and mail it in as the only way to revoke consent.

Virtually all robocalls are illegal.

Remove the 31-day wait when a number is added (Seriously, WTF? I'm not buying a gun here. I don't need a cooling-off period.)

That is to allow time for the telespammers to get the updated list - that they are required by law to buy and honor. Make it too onerous to comply, and the law gets struck down.

And crank up the penalties for violations such that it will hurt even a SuperPAC... maybe add in some criminal penalties too.

I think existing law is actually sufficient. What's needed is to give the FCC about an order of magnitude (or two) more money for enforcement. They do go after the worst of the telespammers, and they do impose huge fines. They just don't have the resources to go after more than the very worst. So write your congresscritter and tell him to give them more money.

It is not called Franchise but concession.
Mac Donalds etc. are Franchises.

Wrong -- by federal law, cable providers often operate as local franchises. That's the term the government uses:

A variety of laws and regulations for cable television exist at the state and local level. Some states, such as Massachusetts, regulate cable television on a comprehensive basis through a state commission or advisory board established for the sole purpose of cable television regulation. In Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the agencies are state public utility commissions. In Hawaii, regulation of cable television is the responsibility of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. In other areas of the country, cable is regulated by local governments such as a city cable commission, city council, town council, or a board of supervisors. These regulatory entities are called "local franchising authorities." ...

The Communications Act requires that no new cable operator may provide service without a franchise and establishes several policies relating to franchising requirements and franchise fees. The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction.

Etc.

By the way, you may want to look up the original definition of "franchise," which had to do with governments granting the right to do business in a particular area or for a particular set of goods, services, etc. The word was later extended in meaning to refer to large corporations granting rights to individual owners to sell their company's products, etc. as in your McDonalds example.

I doubt most baby boomers paid as much for tecom services per month as your average cell phone/home internet connection costs.

Maybe, but I doubt that it's really that far off. And for the difference, you're getting much, much more capability.

That "something like $10 a month" you think your boomer parents were paying was probably just the unlimited local calling portion of the phone bill, before taxes, fees, maintenance charges, extended area service charges, touch-tone charges, and all the other miscellaneous things the phone companies used to charge for. I'm pretty confident in saying this, because I'm a boomer and I remember what I used to pay. In 1986, the national average for a private, single-line touch-tone service was $49.25 per month. $49.25 in 1986 dollars would have been $107.77 in 2015.

Notify NYC has been in place for a year or two now and has worked very well. Except that one time they sent out a WEA for an Amber Alert and had everyone's phones blaring 2:30am (pissing off all 8.4 million residents simultaneously is no easy feat, but they pulled it off).
 
It sends out text messages, emails and has an RSS feed. Subway outages, "police actions", etc. all get texted to you if you subscribe. All my friends use it, it's actually a great system.

Have mod points, would rather educate.
You have a lawsuit against your landlord. Federal law grants you the right to mount a dish.
I have personally fought a home owners association, and won.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

The UK is pretty small.

Yeah and the US is large. But New York city has a higher population density than Tokyo, yet only a fraction of the internet speeds. So while you can argue that there is a large area with no or low speed access, you can't excuse crap service in prime areas

It would be really interesting to see the distribution of ISP speeds by country. For example, the Akamai report shows that while South Korea's average speed is 29.0 Mbps, the majority (58%) of South Korean connections are slower than 25 Mbps. Thus, there are perhaps some very high speed connections that somewhat inflate the average. Absent some representation of the distribution, perhaps the median speed would be more representative.

It's also interesting to note that the study methodology is significant. For example, Akamai's methodology and results starkly differ from the FCC's findings, which estimates the average speed in the US at 31 Mbps in 2014 and quickly increasing.

The distribution of speeds is dependent not only on technical infrastructure but also on pricing. A very large percentage of Americans have very high speed internet access offered in their area, but many may choose lower speeds due to economic affordability or the realization that higher speeds are not needed due to personal usage patterns or the existence of speed bottlenecks aside from the ISP (e.g., internet servers, multimedia protocols, etc.).

This whole thing came about precisely because people running open source software on their routers were using channels that are only legal in Europe and Japan, thus causing interference with other equipment that's licensed to use that spectrum in the US.

The report originally cited by the FCC doesn't say anything about open source firmware. As far as we can tell, the interference was caused by devices running proprietary software that either was buggy or had been modified to not comply with the local regulation. If you know otherwise, please share your sources.

Hello

FCC has no control over me. The internet isn't only in one country.

Hello

This has already been addressed. The government has required carriers and phones implement a system by which emergency messages can be broadcast from cell towers to phones. Not a point to point connection like a phone call, but a point to multipoint broadcast just like FM radio. There's no need to turn on the FM radio or tune in to the proper frequency. If your phone is connected to a tower in the affected area, you automatically get the broadcast. Your phone will make the annoying alert noise, and announces the emergency message at full volume over the speaker. I've already gotten several AMBER alerts and a couple severe weather warnings this way (I live near to a flood zone).

For emergency broadcasts during a long-term (multi-day) disaster, FM radios on phones are a poor choice because when the cellular network goes down, the power grid usually goes down as well. A phone is a terrible device for that situation because most people aren't going to be able to recharge their phones for the duration of the disaster. And although a smartphone with the cellular radio turned off will last nearly a week on battery, if you forget to put it in airplane mode (turn the cellular radio off) the phone will begin broadcasting at full power trying to find a tower and your battery will drain in probably a few hours. A car radio or transistor radio that takes AA batteries or even MP3 player with FM radio (if you've still got one of those) is better for that situation.

Not all phones have the FM Chips, but the campaign misleads us into thinking all phones have them, and the carriers just disabled them. I use a Nexus phone. There's no chip. My wife's LG does have a chip. According to the campaign website, Sprint already allows it, and T-Mobile has stated they will support.

If you purchase your phone and it is unlocked, the carrier is irrelevant. You can do what you want with it (provided it has the chip). If you bought a locked phone through a carrier, then you're at the whim of what they want to allow you to do with your device. Why is this news?

I may be missing something here, but I don't fully understand the emergency beacon type responses. Yes, of course I understand that the more options available for getting emergency information out the better. Of course that makes sense. But I get emergency beacons every once in a while on my phone today through either text or SMS (I've never investigated the mechanism). OK - now I've done 13 seconds of google-fu, and they apparently are not text messages and are specifically designed to not be bogged down during emergency periods with high congestion:

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...
Are WEAs text messages?

No. Many providers have chosen to transmit WEAs using a technology that is separate and different from voice calls and SMS text messages. This technology ensures that emergency alerts will not get stuck in highly congested areas, which can happen with standard mobile voice and texting services.

So having FM radio for emergency broadcasts would be good. But we already have emergency broadcasts using our cell phones - even the ones like mine that do not have an FM chip. The argument for carriers to unlock because it's a security concern seems a bit like fearmongering. It might just work, and I would applaud if all carriers unlocked the chips so we can use them. But we did sign contracts with our carriers when we bought the phones, and they control what we can do, so I'm not sure what leg we have to stand on. Unless you paid full price and bought an unlocked phone.

The FCC rules do not mandate, either directly or indirectly, that OS firmware be blocked. Stop spreading this FUD.

FCC statement

The FCC launched an inquiry in partnership with the FTC. I submitted a story to slashdot on the FCC inquiry, yet somehow this is what we get.

Regardless, this is a big story, as the way security patches have been handled -- or more preciesly ignored by the carriers and manufacturers -- has become a huge problem. We're talking millions of vulnerable internet-connected mobile devices out there which, the way things are now, will never get patches for severe exploits like Stagefright.

All TV is digital now in the U.S. (even broadcast OTA) in order to free up spectrum and cable TV used to be required to offer basic cable and local broadcast channels unencrypted, over the wire, via clear-QAM.

Then in 2012 the previous FCC chairman and commissioners decided to change that rule and let cable companies encrypt everything and thus require ALL users to pay a monthly fee for a set-top box, in addition to their normal service fees.

This also means that the clear-QAM tuner hardware in TVs, that increases the cost of TVs and that we already paid for, became useless.

This is a bit weird because these same cable companies are providing internet service over the same cables but users can choose to rent a cable modem from their provider or buy their own cable modem from a 3rd party.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/cabl...

He's referring to this, technically Verizon can not charge you for it, or they must give you a discount offsetting the charge.

You can start here [obamaphone.com]...

The same program that President Ronald Reagan started to help people afford a phone line?

The FCC established the Lifeline program in 1985 to ensure that qualifying low-income consumers could afford phone service and the opportunities and security it provides. Congress supported and strengthened Lifeline in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring that affordable service and advanced communications be available to low-income consumers across the country. In March of 2016, the FCC modernized Lifeline for advanced services by beginning a transition toward support of broadband service. Learn more about Lifeline modernization from this press release.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/lifeline-support-affordable-communications

Capitalists made the cell phones (and WiFi) possible, Socialists are making it a civil right.

You need to stop watching Fox News on TV, step outside and get some fresh air. Real socialists don't exist in the United States.

There actually is an FCC rule about this based on the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA):

Full-length Internet video programming must be captioned if the programming is shown on TV in the U.S. with captions after Sept. 30, 2013.

We don't actually use "line 21" any more, as analog is dead in the US. CTA-608 and CTA-708 format captions are carried over HD-SDI in ancillary data packets, or more likely for Internet workflows, they are carried in user data or SEI messages of the compressed video codec in a file.

Sure - it was one of the OP links...

"Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)" https://www.fcc.gov/public-saf...

I don't think there would be an FCC enforcement action over something like this. So long as you're allowing other wireless hotspots if they aren't trying to impersonate you, that should be fine.

In the FCC enforcement advisory put out after Marriott, one of the things they mentioned was that Marriott "admitted that the customers it blocked did not pose a security threat to the Marriott network..." If there is a security threat, that does change the situation. You can see that advisory here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-113A1_Rcd.pdf

In fact, I would argue that by trying to put up a wireless network with the same or a similar name, that would constitute an attempt at interference by them. Either way, the FCC is indicating it would consider valid security concerns.

Our local PBS station broadcasts at 1,000kW.

If you are relying on Part 15 FCC regulations, be sure to read them first. Using a device in a way not contemplated by the manufacturer can turn your "approved" device into a "home-built transmitter [that is] not for sale" which puts the onus entirely on you to comply with the rules.

Having said that, if nobody complains, then you almost certainly won't be hearing from the FCC, and even if you were to use a device "as intended" and it caused harmful interference, you are still required to cease using it.

https://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/En... has an interesting item on page 7:

With the exception of intermittent and periodic transmissions, and biomedical telemetry devices, Part 15 transmitters are not permitted to operate in the TV broadcast bands.

I guess that means if you are only going to transmit "intermittently" or "periodically" then this is fine, but it's probably not okay to use this for your home-security system that runs 24/7.

Channel 3 is in the 54-70MHz band, which is okay but only at very low power, 100 microvolts/m measured at 3 m away ("quasi-peak").

It is almost certainly legally safe to use this over low-VHF channels over coax rather than "over the airwaves," and you'll probably get a stronger signal to boot. But it won't be as much fun.

There may be some opportunity to use this under other parts of the FCC rules, such as part 18 (industrial, scientific, and medical) and, on applicable frequencies, part 97 (amateur radio license-holders only, and only in ham bands, and even then NTSC is not an acceptable "mode" in many bands).

What will this do for 911call location issues ? Currently there are numerous issues with VOIP and 911, and AFAIK some solutions but none that provides the full functionality of standard phone calls as far as guiding emergency services to the location of the 911 call.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

The real reason is that they want control and access.

There exist alternatives to Windows 10 that are not as demanding of control by the publisher. But when one evaluates the viability of deploying said alternatives, the following issue is likely to come up:

For an OS to outright deny control to the user is a huge fail.

Federal law requires such "a huge fail." The vast majority of laptop and tablet computers sold nowadays include IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (WLAN) technology, commonly branded as "Wi-Fi", as well as a short-range peripheral network technology called Bluetooth. A WLAN or Bluetooth transceiver includes a radio transmitter, and under FCC regulations, the transmitter's firmware must be secured against end-user modifications that might cause the transmitter to violate Part 15. So any operating system supporting WLAN or Bluetooth has to deny at least some control to the user.

Or would you prefer to use an operating system that does not support WLAN or Bluetooth?

I might have to look into it for the missus. I guess I can get her satellite if she really wants it. The place is covered in solar panels, it might as well have an uglier doodad sticking out of it somewhere.

According to this site:
https://transition.fcc.gov/mb/...

I get nothing...

I could have sworn there was a local site from maine.gov but I am not seeing it. You can put in Rangeley, Maine. My home is actually about 24 miles away from the village center. That site says nothing reaches me but neighbors have said that I should get it. I'm also way, way up on the side of a hill. I seem to recall one neighbor telling me that they even got some Canadian channels with their aerial antenna. I'm a wee bit more than 40 miles out - probably closer to 120 miles out, as the crow flies.

I am now a bit curious. I'll have to poke at it when I get home. It'll give me an excuse to get up on the roof and check the solar panels and see if any damage was done during the winter. Thanks! (No novel this time, I am tired.)

The FCC has a publication on the behavior of RF in the 30-300GHZ range, and the outlook is not rosy. Atmospheric gases, water vapor, rain drops, foliage, and other attenuation and noise sources make these frequencies problematic for medium- to long-range, high speed comms.

Using 60 GHz is interesting because it's attenuation is so high it can be reused every 4 km.

Some departments use to have alternate channels that where not published before digital bands that they would switch to when needed.

All channels are published in the sense that you can search the FCC database for a geographic area and find out what is licensed for use. Yes, unlicensed use happens, but it is the exception not the rule.

FCC Complaint site

And please forward this link so TMobile is smacked down hard and fined. If end-runs around NN are allowed to fly, we're going to see more of these flagrant "opt-out" violations from your ISPs to the point you'll have to hire someone to disable them every month for non-throttled Internet service.

Dude, what kind of rinky dink operation are you working with that tech support closes at 5PM? It must be some single man WISP because even the small dialup ISP I started with in 1993 had 24x7 phone support. It is likely that the lineman who can fix a physical plant problem has limited hours for residential customers, but troubleshooting and diagnosis that could pinpoint an oversubscribed POP should be available around the clock. The idea that you're going to get a 100% commit rate circuit for $30-50/month is insane. The reality is that for most people ISPs do a fine job of keeping speeds in the usable range damn near 100% of the time, see the FCC 2015 broadband report if you don't believe me. The only consistently bad ISPs are Frontier, Windstream, and Century Link (I had forgotten the third, though there results prior to 2015 were somewhat better). Peak vs offpeak had little impact on the ratio of advertised to achieved bandwidth which means oversubscription was a non-factor.

(as an amusing aside the fiber plant that Frontier bought from Verizon shows significantly better results in the 80/80 test than the plant that Verizon kept, I wonder if they just never updated their advertised speeds or if they're actually managing it better than Verizon)

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.

Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.

It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...

There is nothing "unauthorized" about the signals sent to a drone. Even if it was, civilians don't get to enforce the laws. And your link, which refers specifically to cell jamming, doesn't counter that in any way.
"Operation of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. "

2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.

Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.

It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja...

There is one argument I've heard against this registry that I think holds water, and that is the privacy concern. The FAA plans to make the drone registration database publicly searchable, and the search results will include owner names and addresses.

It is completely reasonable to conclude that since the FCC database is capable of reverse lookup (rather than by callsign only), the FAA database will do the same. It also reasonable to conclude that as of now, there are far more ham radio operators than drone operators.

I'm not making a case for or against this. I'm just pointing out a federal system in place which already has this.

I think I get about one call a DAY. How do YOU get the do not call to work???

(1) Try to get as much information as possible from the caller: name of company, type of business, reply phone number, etc. True scammers are likely to waffle, so try to feign interest long enough to get what you can.
(2) Then ... tell the caller that you are on the FCC do-not-call list. If the caller says something oblique, like "oh, I need to mark you not-to-call in my records" then tell them it's the FCC's records (not their own) that they should be checking before they call.
(3) Report the violation to the FCC. Supply as much information as you can, including what you could get from the caller, your phone number, and the time of the call.

For the system to work, it's not enough to be put on the list. People need to complain when a caller violates the law.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/... "Basic" is defined by the FCC. Some may break the law and call it "limited basic" and "enhanced basic" but I go by law, not marketing departments. Nearly all have a sub-$20 basic. And that gets you in the door for Internet, phone and the other services. If they mess with basic, they fuck with FCC law.

You're welcome. A little research planning goes a long way... think about how many drops you want, and do your research on PVR's, etc. You don't have to rent a set-top box from your cable company, you can use your own equipment... You may be able to get three or more drops at no extra charge, ask for details. Cable lineups change frequently, study your plan online, and be aware that things can change on a month-to-month basis... I spent a lot of time educating my customers how, because of changes, that they weren't supposed to get a particular channel, or because they had a particular package, they couldn't receive the channel(s) they thought they should have. I figured thoroughly educating my customers meant that they'd be happier overall with the service...

Remember, the more research you do on your own, the less you're on the telephone, and less chance for something going wrong. Are you wanting a pro install or can you install your own cable modem? Setting up an appointment? Make sure you get the customer service rep to read all phone numbers and the address information back to you. Be meticulous with special instructions, i.e. is there a lock on the gate? Dog? If you're in a new development that hasn't been mapped yet on internet mapping services, please indicate this, or the installer may not be able to find you. Please try to get the customer service representative to spell out words phonetically (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/alphabet.htm). It can be a pain, but being painstaking and careful means less wasted time for you.

Don't forget to ask for specials. Oftentimes some people are so pressured to have short call times that important details get overlooked, don't let people rush you. Demand customer service excellence and attention to detail, especially when dealing with service appointments.

FCC cablecards https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC cable television https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC Choosing cable channels, how to file a complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

FCC consumber guides https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-g...

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, by Eric S. Raymond, Rick Moen http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smar...

You're welcome. A little research planning goes a long way... think about how many drops you want, and do your research on PVR's, etc. You don't have to rent a set-top box from your cable company, you can use your own equipment... You may be able to get three or more drops at no extra charge, ask for details. Cable lineups change frequently, study your plan online, and be aware that things can change on a month-to-month basis... I spent a lot of time educating my customers how, because of changes, that they weren't supposed to get a particular channel, or because they had a particular package, they couldn't receive the channel(s) they thought they should have. I figured thoroughly educating my customers meant that they'd be happier overall with the service...

Remember, the more research you do on your own, the less you're on the telephone, and less chance for something going wrong. Are you wanting a pro install or can you install your own cable modem? Setting up an appointment? Make sure you get the customer service rep to read all phone numbers and the address information back to you. Be meticulous with special instructions, i.e. is there a lock on the gate? Dog? If you're in a new development that hasn't been mapped yet on internet mapping services, please indicate this, or the installer may not be able to find you. Please try to get the customer service representative to spell out words phonetically (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/alphabet.htm). It can be a pain, but being painstaking and careful means less wasted time for you.

Don't forget to ask for specials. Oftentimes some people are so pressured to have short call times that important details get overlooked, don't let people rush you. Demand customer service excellence and attention to detail, especially when dealing with service appointments.

FCC cablecards https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC cable television https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC Choosing cable channels, how to file a complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

FCC consumber guides https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-g...

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, by Eric S. Raymond, Rick Moen http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smar...

You're welcome. A little research planning goes a long way... think about how many drops you want, and do your research on PVR's, etc. You don't have to rent a set-top box from your cable company, you can use your own equipment... You may be able to get three or more drops at no extra charge, ask for details. Cable lineups change frequently, study your plan online, and be aware that things can change on a month-to-month basis... I spent a lot of time educating my customers how, because of changes, that they weren't supposed to get a particular channel, or because they had a particular package, they couldn't receive the channel(s) they thought they should have. I figured thoroughly educating my customers meant that they'd be happier overall with the service...

Remember, the more research you do on your own, the less you're on the telephone, and less chance for something going wrong. Are you wanting a pro install or can you install your own cable modem? Setting up an appointment? Make sure you get the customer service rep to read all phone numbers and the address information back to you. Be meticulous with special instructions, i.e. is there a lock on the gate? Dog? If you're in a new development that hasn't been mapped yet on internet mapping services, please indicate this, or the installer may not be able to find you. Please try to get the customer service representative to spell out words phonetically (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/alphabet.htm). It can be a pain, but being painstaking and careful means less wasted time for you.

Don't forget to ask for specials. Oftentimes some people are so pressured to have short call times that important details get overlooked, don't let people rush you. Demand customer service excellence and attention to detail, especially when dealing with service appointments.

FCC cablecards https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC cable television https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC Choosing cable channels, how to file a complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

FCC consumber guides https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-g...

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, by Eric S. Raymond, Rick Moen http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smar...

You're welcome. A little research planning goes a long way... think about how many drops you want, and do your research on PVR's, etc. You don't have to rent a set-top box from your cable company, you can use your own equipment... You may be able to get three or more drops at no extra charge, ask for details. Cable lineups change frequently, study your plan online, and be aware that things can change on a month-to-month basis... I spent a lot of time educating my customers how, because of changes, that they weren't supposed to get a particular channel, or because they had a particular package, they couldn't receive the channel(s) they thought they should have. I figured thoroughly educating my customers meant that they'd be happier overall with the service...

Remember, the more research you do on your own, the less you're on the telephone, and less chance for something going wrong. Are you wanting a pro install or can you install your own cable modem? Setting up an appointment? Make sure you get the customer service rep to read all phone numbers and the address information back to you. Be meticulous with special instructions, i.e. is there a lock on the gate? Dog? If you're in a new development that hasn't been mapped yet on internet mapping services, please indicate this, or the installer may not be able to find you. Please try to get the customer service representative to spell out words phonetically (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/alphabet.htm). It can be a pain, but being painstaking and careful means less wasted time for you.

Don't forget to ask for specials. Oftentimes some people are so pressured to have short call times that important details get overlooked, don't let people rush you. Demand customer service excellence and attention to detail, especially when dealing with service appointments.

FCC cablecards https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC cable television https://www.fcc.gov/general/ca...

FCC Choosing cable channels, how to file a complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

FCC consumber guides https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-g...

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, by Eric S. Raymond, Rick Moen http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smar...

I recommend that you borrow an antenna and coax cable from a friend and give it a try...

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/...

One of our regulars Bruce Perens, has a good writeup on this. You can read his filing here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme...

There was a Slashdot post about it but I didn't look for it. Ah - it was just a few results down so I'll include it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

You can thank him later. At least he tries and he seems to sum things up fairly well.

He and Dave Taht wrote the reply to the former rulemaking proposal, which *specifically* asked how the vendor would prevent purchasers from flashing it with DD-WRT. Please see the IETF submission at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme...

Don't put up with this shit, fight back. Stage 1 https://consumercomplaints.fcc... and stage 2 https://consumercomplaints.fcc.... Your government, you pay for it, bloody well make use of it, not only will you help yourself, you will help others. The greater the number of complaints against any individual or company, the faster the prosecution. It is time to 'Grrr' up and not keep bending over. Americans are doing that way, WAY, too much. File the formal complaint, check other laws, (federal, check the extent of the law, more than state as contacting US local law enforcement seems to be dangerous all round) and pursue legal retribution. Remember this, you are not only helping yourself but all other victims as well, be an active citizen rather than a passive victim.