Slashdot Mirror

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.

The FCC already requires broadband providers to do this. Most providers have or are implementing a product set called SamKnows to comply. You can read the FCC's 2014 report here or have a look at the FCC's Measuring Broadband America for more info about the program. No, I don't work for the FCC.

Sounds like the NY Attorney General's office is just making more work for ISPs when they could just ask the FCC for the info. Probably just bullying.

A friend of mine just got the license that's a pre-requestite for GROL, it wasn't cheap...but he's working on his GROL.

Your friend is blowing smoke because there is no license that is a prerequisite for the GROL. You don't need to pass (or even take) a class, you don't need to have a high school diploma even. You need the following three things to get your GROL:

• be a legal resident of (or otherwise eligible for employment in) the United States; and
• be able to receive and transmit spoken messages in English; and
• pass a written and/or telegraphy examination(s) as described below under Examinations.

There is no telegraphy requirement for the GROL, only two written elements (1 and 3), and element 8 for the ship radar endorsement.

You can walk into a testing center with the correct amount of money and take the tests. As for how expensive those tests are, you can look here for a list of license examination managers and the fees they charge. I don't see any of them except the last one that charges more than $100 for the three elements necessary to obtain a GROL with ship radar endorsement. Some of them offer online testing on a walk-in basis daily.

The current test fee for Armature Radio tests administered by a VEC is EXACTLY $15. Not a penny more or less is allowed.

You are wrong. The fee is not set by the FCC. The FCC has deregulated the testing fee, as covered here.

The ARRL VEC currently has a $15 testing fee. The Laurel VEC teams charge zero. Nada. Zip. Nothing. I've heard that other VEC teams charge just $5.

This makes the most sense of all the proposals I've seen.

Having a GROL with a ship radar endorsement gives someone absolutely NO special training in how to deal with either WiFi or the software that runs it. If you look here, you'll see what elements you need to pass to get a GROL and the ship radar endorsement (1,3, and 8), and here are links to the question pools from which the exams are created. Look for yourself and see how much relevant knowledge is required for the task Bruce is suggesting they do.

It is patently ridiculous to think a GROL holder will understand what to look for in the software so he can approve it.

This makes the most sense of all the proposals I've seen.

Having a GROL with a ship radar endorsement gives someone absolutely NO special training in how to deal with either WiFi or the software that runs it. If you look here, you'll see what elements you need to pass to get a GROL and the ship radar endorsement (1,3, and 8), and here are links to the question pools from which the exams are created. Look for yourself and see how much relevant knowledge is required for the task Bruce is suggesting they do.

It is patently ridiculous to think a GROL holder will understand what to look for in the software so he can approve it.

Enjoy your fine and possible jail time. You're aware that wireless uses radio spectrum and that spectrum is, quite specifically, under the authority of the FCC, right? No? Well, their charter is a Google away.

Hell, I'll even do the work for you... Go here:
https://transition.fcc.gov/psh... (PDF warning)

That's, specifically, where you want to look. If you're on US soil then they're the governing body, for better or worse, and there's not a whole lot you can do about that. You can violate their rules but I'm going to not have much sympathy when your arrogance gets you a fine that you need to spend the rest of your life paying off. I'm not even going to help you pay it off.

Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out for you. Some of us will be rooting for you. That probably won't be me.

I have an FCC license. Sure, it's just a Novice amateur license, but it's still an FCC license. (No, I won't give you my call-sign, since I wouldn't be an Anonymous Coward anymore if I did. You can seriously look up anyone with a license and get their last-known address by their call sign on the FCC's website.) It costs me approximately nothing every ten years to keep it renewed. (Well, it does cost me about 10 minutes of my personal time to ask for the renewal, but that's it, really.)

My dad has a lifetime first-class GROL (wiki, FCC site). His cost about $30 in the late 1970's, and never expires or requires renewal. Newer ones have an expiration date.

This is clearly not a money-grab, and there are likely few barriers to entry for licensing. Literally anyone who can pass a simple technical test can get licensed. This particular restriction will likely not affect open-source software at all, as at least some of the developers involved in such projects are likely to be radio geeks anyway, and won't think twice about getting licensed. Any properly-run open-source project is going to make sure no official release goes out without the sign-off of one of the licensed radio geek developers. And a BYO release is going to bring the FCC down on your head, not theirs.

Actually, there are many examples of FCC enforcement against transmitters on certain 5 GHz bands interfering with terminal doppler weather radars: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/weather-radar-interference-enforcement. This is actually a real issue.

No, it isn't especially frequent, but it does take place. There are two reasons it isn't more frequent:
1) Most transmitters aren't located in buildings that are high enough to be in the line of sight of airport weather radars. Generally the enforcement actions are against operators of transmitters in or atop tall buildings. Your transmitter a couple of floors above ground is highly unlikely to ever interfere with a radar. And if the radar beam was refracted severely enough for this to occur, there would almost certainly be a lot more interference from ground clutter than your wi-fi transmitter. This is more of an issue in tall buildings. The actual buildings are normally pretty unlikely to cause problems because they are stationary point targets that get filtered as ground clutter. Wi-fi, however, would probably contaminate an entire radial, similar to a sun spike.
2) Transmitters operating on either of the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands are required to use dynamic frequency selection. They are supposed to listen for the signals transmitted by weather radars and, upon detection, switch to a frequency that does not cause interference.

Terminal Doppler weather radars (TDWRs) are installed at about 40 major airports. They operate in the 5 GHz range and are used to detect things like wind shear and microbursts, which are dangerous to aircraft. The higher resolution than the WSR-88D (Nexrad) radars probably makes it easier to detect these features. Also, if the nearest WSR-88D is a significant distance away from the, the beam will be significantly above the ground over the airport. Interference from wi-fi isn't an issue for the WSR-88D radars because they operate around 2.7-3.0 GHz.

As I understand it, the 5 GHz band used for wi-fi systems is shared with TDWRs. This allows wi-fi to operate on TDWR frequencies in areas where there isn't a TDWR using that frequency. Wi-fi equipment is required to detect when a TDWR is operating and, upon detection, switch to another frequency to avoid interference. There have been quite a few enforcement actions by the FCC for wi-fi interfering with TDWR operation: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/weather-radar-interference-enforcement.

The GROL is not for just transmitting- that's a restricted license - the GROL is required to "... to adjust, maintain, or internally repair FCC licensed radiotelephone transmitters ..."

The FCC actually has investigated many complaints of transmissions from wireless devices interfering with terminal doppler weather radars. Here's a list of enforcement actions by the FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/weather-radar-interference-enforcement. So, yes, there have been investigations of the source of interference and penalties for doing so.

You've clearly thought about what would be reasonable for the FCC to do, given their mandate. You then assumed that they've done what would be reasonable. Here are the -actual- requirements which manufacturers must now include in their application for FCC approval. (Link to FCC application requirements document below). This one makes it pretty clear, doesn't it?:

2. What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the
software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected
from âoeflashingâ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT

You said " would be extremely surprised if any language in the proposal itself could be interpreted as ... OpenWRT ". Well I guess you're surprised, because bam, they said it has to be protected from the installation of third-party firmware such an *WRT. Yeah, that's surprisingly unreasonable, which is why knowledgeable people are taking issue with it so much.

Here are a few more things that the FCC requires:

3. Describe in detail the authentication protocols that are in place to ensure that the
source of the software/firmware is legitimate. Describe in detail how the software
is protected against modification.
4. Describe in detail the verification protocols in place to ensure that installed
software/firmware is legitimate.
5. Describe in detail any encryption methods used to support the use of legitimate
software/firmware.

https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAt...

What you suggested, the -radio- settings being limited outside of the main OS on the device, is what I and other professionals are asking the FCC to do -instead-.

Your discussion of a general-purpose computer which happens to have an FCC-approved WiFi dongle (or mini-PCI card) attached shows how silly the FCC rule is, given that many routers in fact use FCC approved mini-PCI cards internally. Specifically, some Linksys models I've opened up have a standard mini-PCI card inside and it is (or possibly, was*) legal to sell the card without the plastic case and other bits that make up the Linksys router. Consumers could put that card onto any board, running any OS. But it's suddenly not legal to sell the same card preinstalled. That may sound too ridiculous to be true. Which is why we're trying to make it cease to be true.

* It's quite possibly illegal to sell the mini-PCI cards now because they are capable of generating beacon frames. The new rules say that anything which -can- generate a beacon frame is an AP. Which includes your Android phone that allows WiFi tethering. That's an AP now, and must have a locked bootloader. Yeah, that's beyond what the FCC should be doing to control radio power. It's a silly, ham-fisted approach. That's why we're writing the letters.

I realize that reading the fine article is a lost art here, but it was even mentioned in the summary, for God's sake. Here, from TFA:

Unsurprisingly, several outside experiments that pitted standard LTE technology or "simulated LTE-U" technology, in the case of one in-depth Google study, against Wi-Fi transmitters on the same frequencies found that LTE drastically reduced the throughput on the Wi-Fi connection.

What do you think "reduce the throughput" means? And what happens when there is more than one tower nearby? And when more and more phones start showing up there?

First, the Google study has been thoroughly discredited. As the "TFA" says, it used "simulated LTE-U" - literally signal generators that bear no resemblance to the actual LTE-U waveform. Google themselves admitted such on page 5 of their report. When those exact same tests were conducted using actual LTE-U equipment, the results were vastly different. You can check the results of the Google tests when real LTE-U equipment was used in this FCC filing.

Your statement about "more than one tower nearby" also betrays a lack of understanding of LTE-U, which is fine given that it's a new technology. LTE-U will not be transmitted from cell towers at all. It is a small cell technology, that has to abide by the exact same power output limits imposed by the FCC as Wi-Fi does in unlicensed spectrum.

That's out of hundreds of MHz of available bandwidth in the unlicensed bands.

The 2.4GHz WiFi band is about 100MHz wide (not "hundreds), and there are only FOUR non-overlapping 22MHz channels in that band. That means that anyone with a powerful signal on channel 1 will interfere with others who are using channels 1, 2, 3, 4 and to some extent, 5. Channel 6 overlaps channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. So, just FOUR LTE-U 22MHz signals could blanket the entire 2.4GHz WiFi band. With each smartphone using two channels ...

Again, you misunderstand the technology. LTE-U is not targeted at 2.4GHz. At all. Period. It is targeted only at the 5GHz band. The FCC says there are 555MHz of bandwidth in the 5GHz band (check on fcc.gov here) I believe 555MHz qualifies as "hundreds of MHz". Not only so, LTE-U is only targeted at a fraction of that spectrum. That's because it's designed to only work in UNII-1 and UNII-3 portions of the UNII band. UNII-2 will be left entirely for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed users.

There would be no need to drown out anyone because (1) it's not technically possible given max LTE bandwidth limitation

You're claiming that it is impossible for a 20MHz LTE-U signal to interfere with a 22MHz WiFi signal. The entire point of TFA is that they have already been show to do so.

Again, remembering that LTE-U won't operate at all in 2.4GHz, that it leaves over 355MHz of UNII-2 spectrum completely untouched, and that at max it would occupy a total of 40MHz given the LTE standard, I stand by my earlier statement.

and (2) the plentiful spectrum that's available in the band.

100MHz is not "plentiful". One LTE-U signal can interfere with up to 9 WiFi channels. You ignore the fact that the LTE-U signal will be more powerful than a standard WiFi signal (because it has to cover a larger area) and is using a preferential sharing protocol that steals access from other users.

See earlier comments on the fact that LTE-U is not contending with Wi-Fi for 2.4GHz spectrum, and the the fact that LTE-U signals will be capped at the same maximum power as Wi-Fi and thus has similar range. This argument is based on incorrect information, but I ho

What are the ranges on the LTE-U base stations?

Similar range to Wi-Fi access points operating in the 5GHz band, since they have to abide by the same power output limitations set by the FCC.

What is the plan to deploy them?

Plan is to deploy them in high congestion areas like airports, malls, parks, busy street corners, etc.

How much of the unlicensed spectrum does it utilize, and is it in 2.4 or 5 ghz ranges.

A single LTE-U channel is only 20MHz wide. Up to two channels can be utilized, for up to 40MHz of bandwidth. All of this is only in the 5GHz band - LTE-U will not use the 2.4GHz band at all. There is 555 MHz of spectrum in the 5GHz band according to the FCC.

My thought exactly. The FCC takes complaints here. They don't respond to (or care much about) individual complaints, but when they get a lot, or can score PR points going after especially egregious violations (like this), they drop the hammer.

Here: https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

It isn't the huge waste people make it out to be, but it is quite the outdated program.

Considering that the FCC changed the definition of "broadband" to 25mbps, I think the article needs updating. Maybe 10mbps "high speed" (bullshit marketing term) is enough for general usage, but "broadband" is an official term governed by the FCC. 10mbps simply doesn't meet this requirement, therefor it isn't even broadband.

Source: https://www.fcc.gov/document/f...

Exactly. This is the data apple has, it's the data being requested, the fact that neither apple nor the FBI can do anything useful with it should be of no legal concern to apple.

It's not what is being requested, though. The FBI is seeking something akin to the CALEA wiretap requirements that phone companies must comply with, where the carrier is responsible for turning over the plaintext or unencrypted audio, not a raw data dump.

CALEA is odd and outdated, in that it only applies to voice communications. (That includes VoIP services provided by wireless or landline phone companies.) There is no direct CALEA equivalent for data, though, in that if all you have is the encrypted stuff, then that's what you turn over in response to a subpoena. The FBI is trying to get around this issue by enforcing a CALEA equivalent on Apple, even though it's not a law - hence the disagreement and why Apple isn't being forced to re-architect iMessage so they can hand over the plaintext.

FYI, the FCC has preempted state laws restricting community broadband in North Carolina and Tennessee.

At worst, hardware manufacturers will make the WiFi portion of the device untouchable from the rest of the firmware, or perhaps requiring signed binary firmware for the WiFi transmitter.

It would be a nice compromise position, but the one of the FCC Documents, in describing the reporting requirements, specifically asks how the device prevents loading "third-party firmware, such as DD-WRT."

I don't think that this does what you think it does. The FCC, in an advisory document, specifically mentions the DD-WRT OS. From Software Security Requirements for U-NII Devices:

What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.

The FCC is trying, with this rule, to prevent any modification to future devices. From the same document:

An applicant must describe the overall security measures and systems that ensure that:

• 1. only properly authenticated software is loaded and operating the device; and
• 2. the device is not easily modified to operate with RF parameters outside of the authorization.

The description of the software must address the following questions in the operational description for the device and clearly demonstrate how the device meets the security requirement.

The same document also suggests that there be strong security between the regulated device and the manufacturer's website to verify installed software. How does this not eliminate the use of Tomato or OpenWRT? If you expect to use one of the alternate firmware on future devices, this proposed rule will absolutely affect your ability to do so.

Gah! I posted so I can't mod you up! This is reeeaallly important!
It's the second attachment in the FCC link in the summary. Page 2.

What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected
from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.

I work for a fortune 500 company and we use DD-WRT on the routers in our labs. They will definitely hear from me!

That would be reasonable, perhaps, but it's not the approach the FCC is taking. The FCC instructions (linked below) require all applicants (manufacturers) to:

      Describe in detail how the device is protected
from âoeflashingâ
      and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.

So indeed the rule they have proposed is to explicitly require that manufacturers prevent the installation of DD-WRT.

https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAt...

The whole FCC Measuring Broadband America is based of a modified OpenWRT based routers maintained by SamKnows!

This actively began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Repo...

Where's the rest of the billions of tax dollars?

Yeah. No. The mechanism is not ionization.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docum...

Quote :
The mechanisms of how RF increases free radical activity and oxidative stress are still being explored.
But the fact that RF does do this has been CLEARLY ESTABLISHED by many research studies.
This increase in free radical levels can and does lead to DNA damage

The same is true for sunlight, which also causes DNA damage, aka cancer.

PKI jammer, ESC Law Enforcement Supplies, the Homeland Security Act 2002,

Like I said, law enforcement is allowed do things the general public is not.

CELL PHONES COME WITH WARNINGS THAT THEY'RE NOT TO BE USED TO MAKE EMERGENCY CALLS

The FCC even has a page about it.

the Apple IMEI killswitch patent,

That kills one phone not all phones in an area.

confirm that it is in fact using IMSI catchers and other equipment to interfere with OTA communications

IMSI catchers do not interfere with communication

As for law enforcement using cellphone jammers try this scenario. Someone finds a bomb with a cell phone attached to it. Wouldn't it be prudent to jam cell phone signals in the area so it can not be remotely detonated while it is being defused? It might go off when the jamming starts but one can clear the area first.

PS. Using all caps just makes me laugh. Yelling is a sure sign of a weak argument.

I cannot find any reference to Kevin Martin outside of some basketball player for some team I frankly have never heard of before. I couldn't say if you are right or wrong about the creation of the term itself. I can however tell you that the terminology was placed in the telecommunications law (1996) to model after the computers II paper published by the FCC. Before that, it was largely refereed to as enhanced services. I don't know if that is connected or not.

Kevin Martin

Here is the problem. Telecommunications and information services are legally defined.

Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.

But hey, should I be allowed to just come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission or any specific act or law created by your elected officials?

I think you've got it backwards. This is infrastructure, critical infrastructure, and it needs to be regulated. In fact, it was regulated until an unelected official unilaterally enacted the changes this FCC Chair is trying to reverse. Truth be told, this was a horrific decision and screwed all of us. Now the question of why this isn't a case where we just "come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission" is because all of these companies use publicly owned properties (rights of ways) to deliver these services. The telephone companies have Central Offices in many of the most expensive zip codes without ever having paid for them or having to pay taxes on those properties. The same for the MSOs (cable companies) who traverse tens of thousands of miles using the rights of ways our utility poles are located on without compensating any of us. Then there's all that money we have given them in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.

First, I think an actual law should be passed instead of unelected appointed officials reversing over 47 years of precedence (the first FCC reference that I know of about computer communications being an enhanced service and not telecommunications is circa 1968) and pushing their own agenda.

Except that the law is already in place and the FCC has been challenged before as to whether it did have the power to make these decision. That power was upheld by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.

This argument was even more interesting 13 years ago when the FCC ruled "that cable modem service is properly classified as an interstate information service and is therefore subject to FCC jurisdiction." https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html

You might think that gives the ISPs a slam-dunk case, but what makes this complex is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Portland case, which classified cable modem service as both an "information service" and "telecommunications service." Since Congress hasn't passed subsequent laws to pick between those choices, the FCC most likely has the freedom to freely switch between the two...

Also, that would be willful interference.

  Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules prohibits amateur operators from willfully or maliciously interfering with or causing interference to any radio communication or signal. 47 C.F.R. 97.101(d).

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/ama...

But hey, I think you can argue the situation calls for it anyway!

They may be, given the horrendous loss involved and the use of directional coupling. That 50 Watt limit is not absolute, it's more of a guideline for Amateur radio stations specifically, not all emitters. Your cell phone at < 4W is also closely regulated due to its proximity to human tissue. Please refer to the FCC RF exposure site for the full regs.

RF exposure is a function of frequency, duty cycle, distance, transmitter power, and antenna gain. I have a tiny 10mW 10GHz transmitter that couples its power via WR-90 waveguide. If my math is correct, that's 3.1 mW/cm^2 at the mouth of the waveguide - WAY over the exposure limit of 1.0 mW/cm^2 at 10 GHz for uncontrolled access.

Remember, sunburns are actually RF burns.

I Google'd "bruce perens site:fcc.gov" and this came up as the first hit.

Yes, you can report them. Do so here

Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

Or the "World's government" - i am a Greek and i hope that the (USA's) Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) will (at least) try to save me from "PayPal's Forced Robocalls Plan...

I did not had any complain for PayPal until this advertising robocalls "plan" - if i receive any on my phone (voice or text message, something not rare in Greece, where we don't have USA's Federal law which requires an explicit opt-in to receive such messages) i will cancel my account, something i really would not like doing.

Die in a fire you stupid fucking oxygen thief.

Lately the FCC seems to be the only competent part of the federal government.

Or the "World's government" - i am a Greek and i hope that the (USA's) Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) will (at least) try to save me from "PayPal's Forced Robocalls Plan...

I did not had any complain for PayPal until this advertising robocalls "plan" - if i receive any on my phone (voice or text message, something not rare in Greece, where we don't have USA's Federal law which requires an explicit opt-in to receive such messages) i will cancel my account, something i really would not like doing.

Thousands of pages? Have you skimmed it? http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

"A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management."

Subject to reasonable network management - Not that that will ever be an abused argument.

Thousands of pages? Have you skimmed it? http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...

Let's be real here. Radio waves _can_ be harmful. They may seem magical but they really can be damaging if they deposit too much energy into living tissue. For 2450 MHz into a 9 dBi antenna, the 'safe' distance for a controlled environment is 0.518 meters (1.700 feet) - that's an environment where everyone is aware of the radiation and the public is not allowed. In an uncontrolled environment (where the public may be exposed) the 'safe' distance is 1.140 meters (3.739 feet). I put safe in quotes because the existing FCC rules are very conservative.

If you're not familiar with MPE, there are interesting docs available:

http://www.arrl.org/fcc-rf-exp...
https://www.fcc.gov/encycloped...

Interestingly, the max power you can be exposed to is very frequency-dependent. Freqs that are closer to body-sized parts are more likely to couple to the RF and absorb more power so the max permissible power is lower.

Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/lif...

http://www.snopes.com/politics...

http://gawker.com/5947133/the-...

And, of course, the FCC has still not release the 300 pages of regulations, so nobody really knows the details yet.

Do you mean this document? FCC Releases Open Internet Order It's closer to 600 pages but most of it is justification for making the rules they made. The actual rules themselves take up about 8 pages.

While I think the reaction to the nipple flash at the Superbowl was way over the top there is a substantial difference between something that is broadcast over the air with no control over who can receive it vs. something sent down a wire at the specific request of the receiver.

The Net Neutrality regulations were a major overstep by the FCC and SHOULD have been a law passed by Congress.

The Net Neutrality regulations WERE a law passed by Congress! Specifically, Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, etc.).

The FCC isn't doing anything "new," it's just reclassifying Internet service providers from one category ("information service" to another ("telecommunications service"). And it's putting them in the category that they should have been in all along!

In other words, the FCC fucked up in 2002 when it made this ruling (where it exercised "forbearance" by not classifying ISPs as telecommunications services, even though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that they were in fact telecommunications services), and now it's fixing that fuck-up.

Sadly, Congress can actually overturn FCC rules, and this Congress, with its Republican majority may succeed where their predecessors failed.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the government has never tried to censor anything, nothing on the Internet?

And you're trying to tell me they've never tried to censor any part of a telecommunications service?

Well sorry to burst your bubble, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has an entire section on censorship of sexually explicit materials:

TITLE V--OBSCENITY AND VIOLENCE

`(a) Whoever--
                                `(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
                                        `(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
                                                `(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
                                                `(ii) initiates the transmission of,
                                    any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
                                    communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
                                    or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
                                    harass another person;
                                        [...]
                    shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned
                    not more than two years, or both.';

You were saying?

from the FCCs own press release

"Interconnection: New Authority to Address Concerns
For the first time the Commission can address issues that may arise in the exchange of traffic between mass-market broadband providers and other networks and services. Under the authority provided by the Order, the Commission can hear complaints and take appropriate enforcement action if it determines the interconnection activities of ISPs are not just and reasonable."

It's funny how this was a civil trial

There was no trial. It was a consent decree and not a court case. You might want to look up what civil penalty actually means.

A civil penalty or civil fine is a financial penalty imposed by a government agency as restitution for wrongdoing.

Civil penalty has nothing to do with what type of court, civil or criminal.

By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.

I cannot fault your analysis of that particular sentence since I'm certain that some lawyer somewhere will eventually argue that when the "not in general public use" criterion is absent it somehow becomes a "reasonable" search.

On the other hand, simply because a technology becomes available to monitor something formerly private does not mean that that technology will stay available and become something in "general public use." The now classic evolution-begets-prohibition example is radio frequency scanners. Making or using scanners to listen to analog phone transmissions for fun or profit became a bad idea, not something in general public use.

If you consider that merely listening to something that people voluntarily broadcast, in the clear, was deemed illegal, what do you think the reaction is going to be to your nosy neighbor bathing your home in artificial radiation for the purpose of peeping at things going on that are not ordinarily visible from the outside? That everyone will accept that shielding their home is impractical and simply shrug? Not once some git uses the technology to surveil a politician it won't.

While I'm pretty sure you're mocking the GP I thought someone might actually want that information.

The summary: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...
I think the rules are here (but a fourth of it is commentary): http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
I think this is the related "title II" stuff so you can see what portions they picked to apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I find it weird that I couldn't actually find that chapter on ecfr.gov but oh well.

While I'm pretty sure you're mocking the GP I thought someone might actually want that information.

The summary: http://www.fcc.gov/document/fc...
I think the rules are here (but a fourth of it is commentary): http://transition.fcc.gov/Dail...
I think this is the related "title II" stuff so you can see what portions they picked to apply: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
I find it weird that I couldn't actually find that chapter on ecfr.gov but oh well.

Though the FCC could step in and apply their own regulations I doubt they would even consider it for non-broadcast access.

Actually, they already have very specific rules for captioning Internet streaming content that Netflix and all other streaming companies follow (the misunderstanding that Netflix "doesn't do captions" is totally wrong - the vasty majority of their content is captioned):

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/capt...

This lawsuit was trying to claim that those already extensive rules aren't enough and the ADA requires all content to be captioned. Luckily the courts didn't agree...