Slashdot Mirror

Wish I would have heard about this during the comment period, the article says it ended Friday. Anyway, the case is RM-11737 in FCC's ECFS.

A few things are worth noting about the original case. Marriott agreed in a plea deal to have improperly used "containment features" of FCC-licensed equipment to block Wi-Fi hotspots, and this was performed in conference facilities, not the hotel. https://www.fcc.gov/document/m...: "Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., will pay $600,000 to resolve a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act. The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network."

$1000 per device? Wow. I was at a recent trade show and they wanted $80 per device per day. Needless to say, everybody had their phone in hotspot mode and therefore the 2.4GHZ spectrum was useless for everybody.

A few things are worth noting about the original case. Marriott agreed in a plea deal to have improperly used "containment features" of FCC-licensed equipment to block Wi-Fi hotspots, and this was performed in conference facilities, not the hotel. https://www.fcc.gov/document/m...: "Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., will pay $600,000 to resolve a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act. The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network."

"containment features"??? You mean "illegal jammers", don't you, Marriott? Because, unless the FCC has drastically changed the rules, intentional jamming of legal signals is absolutely illegal, no matter what the reason, unless of course, they have prior FCC authorization. Which I highly doubt. Sauce for the goose, etc...

Cable providers need to keep a close eye on any signal that leaks from their systems and fix it, or else face fines from the FCC. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cabl...

A few things are worth noting about the original case. Marriott agreed in a plea deal to have improperly used "containment features" of FCC-licensed equipment to block Wi-Fi hotspots, and this was performed in conference facilities, not the hotel. https://www.fcc.gov/document/m...: "Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., will pay $600,000 to resolve a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act. The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network."

Operation on 2.5Ghz is authorized by part 15 of the FCC rules. Within part 15, there are a number of subparts, including subpart 5:

        If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications,
even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment
authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will will be required to cease
operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bure...

They could do all that, but really, would they bother? Just to save the cost of a frequency license? That sounds rather far-fetched.

And yet, this reports the abuse of ham radio by the Indianapolis, IN, USA police department. You can read about FCC actions, for example, this one, which is typical of the kinds of illegal use commercial operations make of ham radio.

They could do all that, but really, would they bother? Just to save the cost of a frequency license? That sounds rather far-fetched.

And yet, this reports the abuse of ham radio by the Indianapolis, IN, USA police department. You can read about FCC actions, for example, this one, which is typical of the kinds of illegal use commercial operations make of ham radio.

It seems routine to me that a company such as a Telco or Cableco is making an application for various things and asserting that there is or is not effective competition in a certain market.

It is used as justification on the application to allow the Telco/Cable company to do things they might not be allowed to do otherwise.

If there is effective competition in the market; they can essentially raise rates and do a number of other things however they please. If there is not effective competition in the market, then those things are more restricted, but they can essentially acquire other companies in the market however they please without objection (since there is no competition, the other Telco/Cable co. in the market must not be a competitor).

Example: 3/29/13 Comcast Cable Petitions for Effective Competition, Pennsylvania.

Petitioner alleges that its cable system serving the Communities is subject to effective competition pursuant to Section 623(l)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”),2 and the

Commission’s implementing rules,3 and is therefore exempt from cable rate regulation in the Communities because of the competing service provided by two direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers, DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”), and DISH Network (“DISH”). The petitions are unopposed.

> > How about simple rules one at a time as needed.

>Oh, you mean Title II classification?

Title II is quite the opposite - over 100 pages of statute enabled by thousands of pages of regulations. You may have noticed Obama said he wanted to put them under Title II in regards to adding the USF tax to your bill and certain other parts, but not other parts of title II. The FCC commisioners had to point out that it doesn't work that way - the president doesn't get to write abnew law for some people by picking and choosing a few parts of the law he likes while leaving out other parts. If we want a new law appropriate for ISPs, Congress would need to pass such a law.

Actually, the FCC can do just that, according to the relevant law (cf. SEC. 203. [47 U.S.C. 203] SCHEDULES OF CHARGES):

(2) The Commission may, in its discretion and for good cause shown,
modify any requirement made by or under the authority of this section either in
particular instances or by general order applicable to special circumstances or
conditions except that the Commission may not require the notice period specified
in paragraph (1) to be more than one hundred and twenty days.

I'd also point out that until 2002 (for cable ISPs) and 2005 (for DSL ISPs), these guys were subject to Title II regulation. Since they were reclassified under Title I, we've seen less competition, higher prices, more abusive terms of service and the theft (it's hard to call it anything else) of nearly USD$200 Billion in subsidies for new infrastructure and upgrades. As such, it seems to me that while Title II reclassification isn't the solution to the issues associated with broadband in the US, it would be a good start.

All that said, I do believe that reasonable people can disagree, and we should all try to hash this out in a way that favors the vast majority of people in the US, and not the large ISPs who have spent lots of money lobbying in Washington, DC and in statehouses across the country.

I believe that creating competition is the best way to do so. I also beiieve that this needs to be done both at the national, and more importantly, the state and municipal levels. I can detail what I think should be done if you like and we can certainly discuss it. I don't claim to have a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas, nor is my mind necessarily made up as to what the best way to go about it.

I do understand your suspicions about government intrusion into the private sphere, and I'm sure that in many areas we are in agreement about how big government is screwing us in favor of both monied interests and enhancing its own power and control. At the same time, some in government still think that they need to at least appear to be working for their constituents, so if we can leverage that to make a difference in our favor, I'm all for it.

I am convinced that the big ISPs have used their preferential positions to stifle competition, slow innovation and enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

That's what I think. I understand if you don't agree with me, but I don't consider you to be my enemy. Rather, I think that at heart, we have the same ideals (a nation of laws, which strives to provide maximum liberty and equality of opportunity). Perhaps we disagree on policy specifics, but I hope we can agree on the ideals.

All that said, what say you? What is your prescription to address the lack of competition, cronyism, regulatory capture that plague the broadband internet market?

Do NOT be fooled by the "Net Neutrality" cover story. This is an effort to regulate the Internet by hardcore leftists, and if allowed to proceed will be the end of the Internet as we know it.

The unregulated Internet CHANGED THE WORLD. Allowing government regulations will only destroy what has been created.

You sir, are uninformed. Until 2002 Cable inernet service *was* classified as a common carrier under Title II. DSL Internet was also a common carrier until 2005.

Since those orders reclassifying internet access under Title I rather than Title II, the ISPs have slowed innovation, dragged their feet with infrastructure upgrades despite the USD$200 billion subsidies given to them, raised prices, created ever more abusive terms of service, and consolidated their stranglehold over both content distribution and last-mile infrastructure through consolidation, lobbying at the municipal, state and federal levels and plumbed the depths of poor customer service.

All of this since we lessened regulation on the ISPs. There was huge growth, innovation, new infrastructure, more competition and fairer terms of service, *before* that. So, as I said, you're uninformed. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse for partisan reasons. Or, you're just a shill for the big ISPs. I'll assume you're just uninformed, rather than a liar.

Do NOT be fooled by the "Net Neutrality" cover story. This is an effort to regulate the Internet by hardcore leftists, and if allowed to proceed will be the end of the Internet as we know it.

The unregulated Internet CHANGED THE WORLD. Allowing government regulations will only destroy what has been created.

You sir, are uninformed. Until 2002 Cable inernet service *was* classified as a common carrier under Title II. DSL Internet was also a common carrier until 2005.

Since those orders reclassifying internet access under Title I rather than Title II, the ISPs have slowed innovation, dragged their feet with infrastructure upgrades despite the USD$200 billion subsidies given to them, raised prices, created ever more abusive terms of service, and consolidated their stranglehold over both content distribution and last-mile infrastructure through consolidation, lobbying at the municipal, state and federal levels and plumbed the depths of poor customer service.

All of this since we lessened regulation on the ISPs. There was huge growth, innovation, new infrastructure, more competition and fairer terms of service, *before* that. So, as I said, you're uninformed. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse for partisan reasons. Or, you're just a shill for the big ISPs. I'll assume you're just uninformed, rather than a liar.

Declare all exclusivity/franchise agreements null and void

Exclusive franchise agreements haven't been allowed since 1992.

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. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.

Its a natural monopoly. The infrastructure needs to be separate from the services.

I'm lucky. I live in an area where I have about 4 choices for TV/Internet/etc. That's still not enough.

AT&T doesn't want re-classification, so they're making it seem like infrastructure costs will be increased by it.

It seems to me that by remaining under TItle I and being able to throttle user data for arbitrary reasons, they would incur higher operational costs to support that capability. Re-classification under Title II could require them to allow packet transit without throttling or other arbitrary "management." It would also require them to sell (not give away) service in non-discriminitory ways.

So, this is just sowing FUD to get those who really want decent (read: Gbit connections) internet access to yell at the politicians, who are bought and paid for by the lobbyists, that pretend to represent their electorate, rather than those they consider their constituents (the ones who pay to keep them in office).

AT&T doesn't want re-classification, so they're making it seem like infrastructure costs will be increased by it.

It seems to me that by remaining under TItle I and being able to throttle user data for arbitrary reasons, they would incur higher operational costs to support that capability. Re-classification under Title II could require them to allow packet transit without throttling or other arbitrary "management." It would also require them to sell (not give away) service in non-discriminitory ways.

So, this is just sowing FUD to get those who really want decent (read: Gbit connections) internet access to yell at the politicians, who are bought and paid for by the lobbyists, that pretend to represent their electorate, rather than those they consider their constituents (the ones who pay to keep them in office).

Obama's only card to play if they stonewall is to fire Director Wheeler and replace him

The president appoints the commissioners of the FCC, but he does not have authority to remove them.
They serve for fixed five-year terms. Chairman Wheeler was appointed by President Obama. His term began on November 4, 2013, and will extend through November 3, 2018. The next president, regardless of party, is stuck with this former telecom lobbyist.

Obama's only card to play if they stonewall is to fire Director Wheeler and replace him

The president appoints the commissioners of the FCC, but he does not have authority to remove them.
They serve for fixed five-year terms. Chairman Wheeler was appointed by President Obama. His term began on November 4, 2013, and will extend through November 3, 2018. The next president, regardless of party, is stuck with this former telecom lobbyist.

This is probably good news. Obama makes a public statement urging the FCC to step in and enforce net neutrality, and the FCC suddenly delays a decision they were about to make. That means the decision had already been made and it was that the FCC was not going to intervene. Now they are reconsidering and thus they want more time to figure out what all Obama's request entails.

Huh? They've been arguing about this for at least fifteen years. the question is: Should ISPs be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 (as amended numerous times), exactly as they were before 2002 , or should the current classification (Information Providers) be maintained?

So. No new regulations. No new laws.

This is not a new issue, nor is on that requires "further study." The FCC's owners (the cable/media corporations) are just giving their lobbyists and owned politicians more time to ramp up for a fight.

That's a fantastic example of "super-ironic post," nice work!

Mocking aside, it's because instead of attacking other people for saying something I don't like, I actually pay attention to what goes on in our government - for example, how much seemingly beneficial or innocuous legislation ends up mutated in some "closed door session, " and what ends up being passed into law does nothing but take one more right away from the average citizen and put it into the hands of either the government itself, or one of its corporate partners.

You should try it sometime, the whole 'paying attention' thing; I know you won't get that dopamine high being a dick to "the enemy," ie someone with a different philosophy, gives you, but you will be a better person for it.

I'm not attacking anyone for saying something I don't like. I am chastising someone for spouting off without any (apparent) real knowledge of the issue being discussed.

The question is whether or not ISPs should be classified as "Common Carriers" under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by several additional acts, including the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and several other acts of congress.

In the context of reclassification, no new laws are being proposed, nor are any new regulations. Whether or not re-classification of ISPs under TItle II is good or bad is an issue over which reasonable people can disagree. However, blanket statements like the GP's:

The minute I read the summary my first thought was "if a government bigwig is promoting it, of can't be good for us regular Joe's"

do not add anything valuable or relevant to the discussion.

Had the GP said something like "I think reclassification is a bad thing because..." I would happily engage with him (her?) in a discussion of the relevant issues and why I think reclassification is a good thing. We could then both broaden our understanding of the other's opinion, as well as, quite likely, our own.

You claim I haven't been paying attention, but based upon this post (and the many, many others I've written on this same topic in other threads -- I suggest you check it out for yourself) I think you'll find that, in fact, I have.

For the record, I'm no fan of the FCC and its beholden-to-the-corporations commissioners. Unfortunately, those corporate shills are all we have to work with at the moment -- and I don't see that getting any better regardless of who is sworn in on January 20, 2017.

As such, I applaud Obama's call for reclassification of ISPs under Title II because I think it's an excellent idea that will allow the FCC to require free (as in unrestricted, not $0) carriage of all packets across their networks regardless of source. This can restrict ISPs that are also content providers from throttling their competitors and require that those ISPs must (at least in part, there are serious TOS and technology issues as well) provide unrestricted Internet access to their customers.

I'm all for competition, but that can't be accomplished or regulated by the FCC. It's a complicated issue, as cable/internet franchises are generally granted by municipal governments (thousands of them) who control the rights-of-way for last-mile infrastructure.

I have some ideas about how to address that (again, see my numerous posts about that ), but that's a separate discussion from Title II reclassification.

In any case, I don't see GP as my enemy. Heck, I don't even know what he or she thinks about the issue at hand, as they didn't even bother to contribute -- they just made vague complaints about "bigwigs." The truth is, I don't consider any

They are prohibited by FCC mandate from encrypting over the air channels

Nope.

Comcast is a better TV provider than Time Warner Cable, and that's saying something. Comcast uses the copy protect flag more sparingly, and offers more Clear QAM channels.

Also, nope. In my area, Comcast started encrypting everything, including over the air channels, over a year ago.

Time Warner Cable is objectively the worst cable provider

LOL, you poor, naive fool. You only think that because you haven't experienced the Hell that is Comcast "customer service." I've filed multiple BBB complaints. I once almost got arrested by the sheriff's deputy Comcast hires to guard their office from irate customers -- that's how bad they are!

Comcast is so bad that I've even resorted to lobbying local politicians to try to kick them out of my city.

If you see a violation of this you can report it to the FCC and they'll get in big trouble.

I tried. In my case, Comcast started encrypting (some of the) OTA channels weeks before sending the notice required by Title 47 Section 76.630 (a)(1)(v) (look it up!). I filed a complaint with the FCC, and heard nothing whatsofuckingever.

The FCC is in Comcast's pocket.

Depending on where you live or who your provider is you may be able to get analog cable despite the claims. My local cable company tells you that it's digital only and you must have a card/box. My dad plugged his coax straight into his tv (which does not have or support a card) and he gets about 100 channels. So, I say try plugging the coax in and find out what is really what.

That's what I had done until Comcast started encrypting everything.

The FCC sold us out about two years ago.

Which rules are those? I've never seen "net neutrality" rules that would have the effect you state.

You haven't bothered to read them, then. Go have a gander at the full document. Since it's 107 pages long, and you're too lazy to read and try to understand it yourself, I'll provide a few excerpts. But first, let's check out the difference between "Lawful" and "Legal": There is a pretty good explanation here, but you should research it yourself. Basically, "unlawful" is MUCH broader than "illegal"

All emphasis from the FCC rules excerpts below is mine.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

The nondiscrimination principle would prohibit broadband Internet access service providers from favoring or disfavoring lawful content, applications, or services accessed by their subscribers, but would allow broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management.

Note in the above, we are now addressing not just whether content is lawful, but even services and applications being used or accessed.

The draft rules would not prohibit broadband Internet access service providers from taking reasonable action to prevent the transfer of unlawful content, such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.

Now a broader definition of copyright infringement is being implemented - not just "illegal" infringement, but any distribution not explicitly allowed is subject to "reasonable action" by ISPs.

The Commission determined that consumers are entitled to: access the lawful Internet content of their choice[;] . . . run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement[;] . . . connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network[; and] . . . competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Here, again, we see that what the FCC wants to ensure is that "consumers" can "access" content that they consider lawful. How far can we go? What if we need to ensure what content is "lawful" by ensuring that anyone, say, running a server, writing a blog, etc., has a valid license from the FCC to do so. Want a domain name from ICANN? What will you be using it for? Do you have a journalism license? Is your content lawful?

we propose that all the principles be subject to the needs of law enforcement, as well as public safety, and national and homeland security, by proposing separate draft rules on these topics. As explained in more detail below, we intend to leave sufficient flexibility in all our rules to allow broadband Internet access service providers to address law enforcement, public safety, and national and homeland security needs. Furthermore, we have no intention of protecting unlawful activities in these rules. Therefore, for additional precision, we add the word “lawful” to the proposed second rule to make clear that nothing here requires broadband Internet access service providers to allow users to engage in unlawful activities. The addition of the word “lawful” also harmonizes the second proposed rule with the first and third.

The emphasis above is from the original document.

As explained above, rather than extending that common carrier standard to broadband Internet access services, we propose a general nondiscrimination rule subject to reasonable network management and specifically enumerated excep

If you have problems with your local internet (or cable) service provider, there is only one correct audience for your complaint. Competition is regulated LOCALLY, just like wars are handled NATIONALLY and family budgeting is a DOMESTIC issue. The FCC advises at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cab... to direct complaints to local franchising authorities.

For example, with Comcast, they are required to plainly put this contact information on your bill. See for example this bill http://comcastbills.com/Compar... The franchise authority is on the bottom right. If you have unrequested upcharges on your bill and then the ISP fixes it, that is fine -- but you should also make a report to the LFA so they can see the pattern. You can also call the LFA first.

Talk of boycotts are not effective. Talking about Obama is not effective. Talking to your ISP is not effective. This is because you are not the customer. Your local regulatory commission is the customer. And they are not helping us because they do not understand the issues. They do not use pipe analogies and don't read slashdot. They worry about school funding, local taxes, AARP, and baking brownies. If you've read this far you already know what to do.

If you have problems with your local internet (or cable) service provider, there is only one correct audience for your complaint. Competition is regulated LOCALLY, just like wars are handled NATIONALLY and family budgeting is a DOMESTIC issue. The FCC advises at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cab... to direct complaints to local franchising authorities.

For example, with Comcast, they are required to plainly put this contact information on your bill. See for example this bill http://comcastbills.com/Compar... The franchise authority is on the bottom right. If you have unrequested upcharges on your bill and then the ISP fixes it, that is fine -- but you should also make a report to the LFA so they can see the pattern. You can also call the LFA first.

Talk of boycotts are not effective. Talking about Obama is not effective. Talking to your ISP is not effective. This is because you are not the customer. Your local regulatory commission is the customer. And they are not helping us because they do not understand the issues. They do not use pipe analogies and don't read slashdot. They worry about school funding, local taxes, AARP, and baking brownies. If you've read this far you already know what to do.

I found the answer to my question regarding privacy of calling numbers.
Here's some law in the USA from the FCC's web site.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/call...

The FCC’s Caller ID rules protect the privacy of the person calling by requiring telephone companies to make available free, simple and uniform per-line blocking and unblocking procedures. These rules give you the choice of delivering or blocking your telephone number for any interstate (between states) call you make. (The FCC does not regulate blocking and unblocking of intrastate calls.)

I read that as (in the USA) the carrier cannot give you data that may contain calling numbers of people (human beings) that were ID-blocked.

For corporations:

FCC Caller ID Rules for Telemarketers

Even before passage of the Truth in Caller ID Act, FCC rules required telemarketers to pass accurate caller ID information. FCC rules specifically require that a telemarketer:

Transmit or display its telephone number or the telephone number of the seller on whose behalf the telemarketer is calling, and, if possible, its name or the name and telephone number of the company for which it is selling products or services.
Display a telephone number that you can call during regular business hours to ask to no longer be called. This rule applies even to companies that already have an established business relationship with you.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/letter-comcast-tw-and-charter-regarding-stopping-clock

On September 23, 2014, Comcast Corporation and Time Warner Cable filed their Opposition to
the Petitions to Deny and Comments. In addition to the narrative, the Opposition included three
economist declarations, one declaration from a Comcast engineering Senior Vice-President, and one
declaration from a professor of computer science. Part of the economist declarations presented empirical
work arguing that prices of NBCU national cable networks and NBCU owned and operated local
broadcast television stations did not, because of the Comcast-NBCU transaction, increase more than
would otherwise be expected, contrary to the Commission’s analysis in the order approving the Comcast-
NBCU transaction. This material is critical to the evaluation of the proposed transactions. In addition,
the economist statements included theoretical calculations of estimated price increases due to increases in
bargaining leverage, and empirical studies of two recent disputes between programming networks and
cable systems. This material represents a relatively substantial body of new work that will take some time
for outside parties to evaluate and respond to, and at least some of which could have been filed with the
initial applications. As a result, in response to a request filed by Dish Network Corporation, we have
today released a Public Notice extending the deadline for filing Responses to Comments and Oppositions
to October 29, 2014.

They mandate a whopping three hours a week (oh! tyranny!), and that law has been in effect since 1990.

I can't support this merger given how horrible my current experience is with TWC. They've been to my house 6 times over 8 weeks and still no service. I've missed neatly 3 full days of work. It's not like I have another option either. One customer service rep canceled my order accidentally and had to start a new order.

Make sure you file a complaint with the FCC. You must know that the FCC isn't reading slashdot comments. Here: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

You should fire your legal research team and pull your equipment ASAP. A simple 10 second google search yielded http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedi... which includes wi-fi jammers.

I hate to disappoint you, but the FCC note says otherwise

The Federal Communications Commission repealed its sports blackout rules, which prohibited cable and satellite operators from airing any sports event that was blacked out on a local broadcast station. ....

Elimination of this rule, however, may not end all sports blackouts: sports leagues may choose to continue their private blackout policies through contractual arrangements with programming distributors. ... ...

I think the special part is that 2.4 GHz is a convenient frequency where there is a balance between a larger amount of energy being absorbed by water and a smaller amount of energy being absorbed by glass and plastic.

No, 2.4 GHz was just one of seven convenient open frequency bands when, in 1947, the FCC assigned frequencies for the industrial heating, diathermy, and other RF sources that were causing interference on communication systems. These bands were scattered from 25 MHz to 20 GHz. See p. 8 and p. 50-51 of the Thirteenth Annual Report of the FCC, and the 1947 US Frequency Allocation Proposal to the Atlantic City International Radio Conference (see pdf page 464 of this pdf file). They were collectively called the "ISM bands", because the FCC aggregated Industrial heating, Scientific uses, and Medical heating (diathermy) equipment into bands that would minimize interference to communication systems. The microwave oven (called an "electronic cooker" in the FCC report) was so new that it was explicitly mentioned, and lumped in with other "industrial" heating systems.

AT&T is reaching out and offering a nicely wrapped turd to customers because its seen SOPA and PIPA go down in utter flames thanks to internet advocacy. We may not have caught Kony 2012, and ALS certainly wasnt cured with a bucket of ice, but the fact remains that internet users have inundated social media as well as the FCC formal request system with insistant pleas for net neutrality. AT&T is at a weak point, as its general position of ramming controversial and problematic legislation through in order to lube the wheels of its moneytrain has run into a plutocrats biggest problem. Namely, that if regular people are all allowed to vote and voice their opinions individually, your ability to control the outcome in your favour is eliminated. Its why we have the electoral college instead of an FCC-type system that permits individual input.

So stick it to these assclowns. Keep fighting. https://www.fcc.gov/comments

[$2000] you have no idea what you are talking about

Yeah I did pick that out of my backside, could have added a couple of zeroes. But hmm...

If every one of the 700 million currently assigned numbers in North America makes 3 calls an hour on average, that's ~1.5 trillion call records per month. Plus duration and a bit of geolocation data if available, we're only interested in unique number queries (not ranges) so keys are hashable, no strings, write once read forever... this is really a best case database.

Yup, need to add a zero to buy the disk space. $20,000. Add another zero for a cloudlike platform with several years' data that's not down a third of the time for record maintenance.

It could be technically the landlord's roof, not mmell's.

As long as mmell doesn't share the roof with other tennants, he has the right to mount an antenna up there.

Law of the land since 1996:

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

Speaking of technical, it was only recently you can easily find actual frequencies used by TV stations (needed if you are using UHF wireless mics). After the DTV transition, I could not find actual frequencies used which drove me nuts because those that say it is same as NTSC are wrong

Umm, tvfool.com has had that info forever.

I linked to the FCC's DTV transition plan in my journal about OTA TV in 2007:

http://slashdot.org/journal/18...

Specifically:
"FCC DTV tentative frequency assigments"

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs...

If you're talking about the center frequency, that's a very simple conversion. The Linux DVB package contains two text files listing center frequencies:

us-NTSC-center-frequencies-8VSB
us-ATSC-center-frequencies-8VSB

ATSC eg.:
A 57028615 8VSB
A 63028615 8VSB
A 69028615 8VSB
A 79028615 8VSB
A 85028615 8VSB

I'm somewhat confused. Each ATSC channel is a fixed 6 MHz wide spectrum. They can either do one HD channel or four SD channels (I think but I cannot find solid technical info on TV broadcast except very general info that is aggregates of what everyone else posted, or very esoteric technical specific). I can get MPEG2 is high bandwidth and not that great compared to H264 but MPEG2 continues on because that's the way it is (like DVDs).

I was talking with someone who gave additional reason to cut cord from Comcast is HD from OTA is far superior than on cable which is highly compressed to transmit all those channels down the coax.

Speaking of technical, it was only recently you can easily find actual frequencies used by TV stations (needed if you are using UHF wireless mics). After the DTV transition, I could not find actual frequencies used which drove me nuts because those that say it is same as NTSC are wrong (well yes and no, digital channel is same freq as NTSC channel, but stations go by virtual channel which many are different). Get the freq here,
http://licensing.fcc.gov/cdbs/... put CA for state to show all broadcast TV stations in Calif.

for this diatribe, here's the data of these two stations from FCC site (freq from old school NTSC channel):
both stations are Full(DT) in Los Angeles Call Sign KLCS
Virtual Ch 58
Digital Ch 41 [632-638 MHz]
Licensee LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Call Sign KCET
Virtual Ch 28
Digital Ch 28 [554-560 MHz]
Licensee KCETLINK

Oh well, for you all RF types (yes, there is a low power NTSC station on analog ch 6),
Call Sign, Virtual Ch, Full/Low Power, Digital Ch, Licensee
KABC-TV 7 Full(DT) 7 ABC HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
KCAL-TV 9 Full(DT) 9 LOS ANGELES TELEVISION STATION KCAL LLC
KCBS-TV 2 Full(DT) 43 CBS BROADCASTING INC.
KCET 28 Full(DT) 28 KCETLINK
KCOP-TV 13 Full(DT) 13 FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC.
KEDD-LD - Low (LD) 50 VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC
KFLA-LD - Low (LD) 8 ROY WILLIAM MAYHUGH
KHIZ-LD - Low (LD) 2 JEFF CHANG
KHTV-CD - Low (DC) 27 VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC
KIIO-LD - Low (LD) 10 BAGRAT SARGSYAN
KLCS 58 Full(DT) 41 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
KMEX-DT 34 Full(DT) 34 KMEX LICENSE PARTNERSHIP, G.P.
KMRZ-LD - Low (LD) 22 VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC
KNBC 4 Full(DT) 36 NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE LLC
KNET-CD - Low (DC) 25 NRJ TV III CA LICENSE CO., LLC
KNLA-CD - Low (DC) 50 NRJ TV III CA LICENSE CO., LLC
KSFV-CD - Low (DC) 22 VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC
KSFV-LP 6 Low (TX) Analog Ch 6 VENTURE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC
KSMV-LD - Low (LD) 23 KJLA, LLC
KTBV-LD - Low (LD) 12 EICB-TV WEST, LLC
KTLA 5 Full(DT) 31 KTLA, LLC
KTTV 11 Full(DT) 11 FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC.
KVHD-LD - Low (LD) 40 NEW YORK SPECTRUM HOLDING COMPANY, LLC
KWHY-TV 22 Full(DT) 42 KWHY-22 BROADCASTING, LLC

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/settin...

It is likely that the military doesn't need deniability. Many FCC rules don't apply to the military.

military, like other federal agencies are "licensed" and freq coordinated by the NTIA and there databases are not publicly available like FCC general menu reports. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/Gener...

rare to have the data that maps Cell ID's to locations for every cell tower in a country

I'd expect that data to be readily available at some point in the cellular system. Otherwise, how would they route an incoming call to a cell phone to the proper tower? As you move, your phone continuously 'checks in' with the nearest towers. Depending on the definition of 'where cell phone users go around the globe', that will probably satisfy most nosey governments.

If they need better resolution, they could craft a special SMS message tha would not cause your phone to display any activity, but would provide an acknowledgement with triangulation data to the message originator.

As far as knowing where the cell towers are; in the USA that's a matter of public record.

My mom can't even have a digital satellite dish or even a small mast antenna.

This is all too common for HOAs, and it is illegal. Contact the FCC, and they'll help you resolve that.
Source

Remember, HOAs have nothing but contract law to support them, and must abide by ALL of your local laws. Many places have laws about who can install solar panels, and the HOA has to abide by this.

The NFL's rule is that the local station cannot broadcast the local game if there are unsold tickets.
The FCC's rule is that if the local station cannot broadcast the game then no one can rebroadast a non-local station that is carrying the local game.

See the actual notice of proposed rulemaking: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docum...

Everything you wrote about price controls applies to POTS which is regulated as a telecommunications service. Since 2002 the FCC has regulated cable modems as information services and the 2005 Brand-X SCOTUS ruling made it apply to all forms of internet access. Price controls on information services only apply in very rare cases.

If one were to, you know, look at FCC's Rules on Sports Blackouts, you'd notice that basically the only blackouts the FCC requires involving sports involve exclusive broadcast rights on broadcast TV requiring blackouts on cable/satellite (and even then:

Sports programming that originates on broadcast television (programming that originates on cable or satellite channels or systems is not affected); and
Cable systems with 1,000 or more subscribers, and satellite television systems with 1,000 or more subscribers within a certain zip code.

)

The short and long of it is that (1) the NFL has cornered the market on getting local governments to back stadium construction through loans and tax breaks and (2) cornered the market on exclusive broadcasting rights to effectively ban local broadcasts to allow ridiculous ticket prices for anyone local to actually watch the game--this latter part, btw, is likely what the local government wants anyways as it removes a lot of the plebs and grants a higher tax revenue when the tax breaks end (or are reduced).

Going and whining to the FCC as if they're responsible entirely misses the point except in so far as the FCC may have some sort of obligation to demand that public broadcasts be used to allow local people to watch games they're effectively subsidizing in multiple ways (tax breaks for the stadium and broadcast rights for the tv stations). Yet, I think that too much of a stretch, personally, given that it's quite clear that the FCC's job is not to be some sort of universal enforcer on tv broadcasters. This, like the issue with Verizon's throttling, are issues the FTC should be taken to task to deal with as clearly the real issue in both cases are ones of fair trade.

Using this source https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
We can guess that there must be between 400 to 500 broadcasting stations
Now the quoted figure 326K for 30 seconds, should be for the nationwide broadcast of ads that the local and regional broadcaster cannot use (BB's own time).

So thinking that about 200 stations buy BB, and they give up the 30 second, that would 200 x 326 that's about 65 million gross income per episode.
I think that the number 326K is the NYC, CHI, LA top rates. I would guess that the nationwide average of the rates is much lower.

I'm entirely guessing, please correct me and fix the numbers where applicable

If someone plugs in a router with a spoofed MAC of an allowed device for that port, you'd never know.
Most routers support MAC spoofing in order to forward the MAC of your main PC to the cable / DLS modem. Many ISPs will block a new MAC for a period of time or until your call up and tell them. If you require authentication on a wired port, they could set that up as well.
The only way to prevent a MITM attack is to physically secure the network wiring or centrally manage per-device encryption keys/certificates. And I know you're not doing that. And if you want to claim that you are, I also know you're not doing it for your printers and other devices.

For wireless, if someone plugs in a wireless router you might be able to detect it if you have antennas in range, but you can't stop it.

The air marshal shit Meraki does is completely illegal. You can't jam wifi, which is all Meraki does for "containment". They even fucking admit that it's illegal to use it in their documentation.
From https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/p... , page 8:

2As containment renders any standard 802.11 network completely ineffective, containment measures should taken in your airspace. Extreme caution should be taken to ensure that containment is not being performed on a legitimate network nearby and, action should only be taken as a last resort. Unauthorized containment is prosecutable by law (subject to the FCC’s Communications Act of 1934, Section 333, ‘Willful or Malicious Interference’).
http://transition.fcc.gov/Repo...

Beyond the legality, it doesn't even work in a manner that could be called secure. It creates bubbles of noise where NO wifi works (hello DoS). It becomes a loudness war and the rogue AP will always have a bubble of effective range where it will win out. If you have two Meraki networks near each other, they often get into wars, shutting each other down where their edges meet.

VLANs has nothing to do with wireless security. Segregating your networks with a VLAN is pointless - all the devices that are wireless APs also include routing functions. Use them. VLANs are meant for logically extending a network that is physically separate, not for logically separating a network that is physically connected.

Then how come all the FCC commissioners are appointed by Barack Hussien Obama? http://www.fcc.gov/leadership
You are a libtard fuckwit.

The FCC extended the comment deadline, allowing comments to be filed until midnight Friday, July 18. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub... (Needless to say, this will result in a thrash about whether that's the midnight at the beginning or the end of Friday, July 18.)

Interesting idea sharing your actual comment. Here is mine (link is to a small pdf from the fcc site showing the text of the comment):

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

Others are welcome to read the comment to get ideas for what to write but I don't recommend copy-pasting my comment as your own. Write it in your own words and say why it affects you personally. Getting 20 real, independantly written comments with personal stories matters more than getting 100 copy pasted comments. These orgs are used to getting hundreds of identical comments from groups like moveon.org and such which encourage people to "write their representatives, and to make it easy for you here is what to write..." and those are too easy to ignore.

-AndrewBuck

The FCC disagrees: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/retransmission-consent

Also, everything I could find about statutory royalties only applied to audio recordings.

The petition from WISPA has a fairly comprehensive summary. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docum...