Slashdot Mirror
Rewriting Rules on Delivery of the Internet
mathin writes "A recent NYTimes (free reg required) article states that, 'The Federal Communications Commission began writing new rules today that officials and industry experts said would profoundly alter both the way the Internet is delivered and used in homes and businesses.' Things under consideration: broad band over electrical wires and VoIP. A little thin on details, but interesting none the less."
And don't forget Marc Majcher's nytview page. It works well if you RTFM.
-ted, waiting for the inevitable replies about "who cares if they require you to register!" and "big companies are evil!" and "who cares if it isn't goatse!"
let's translate this article into geek-speak:
The FCC's talking about powerline broadband. Yeah, we're nowhere close to a commercial rollout yet, but at least the regulators are certifying that the plans won't cause massive harm to any other communications tech, so they're about to sign off on it.
In totally unrelated hearings, Free World Dialup / Pulver.com (who we discussed yesterday seems likely to get the preemptive ruling they were asking for that they not be subject to the regulations that the Ma Bells wish the FCC would slap them with. That battle seems over for good.
FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps has made his usual objections to deregulation and sided with the Ma Bells on the FWD issue, but as has been the trend recently, he was outvoted.
Political types also gave typical quotes about the future of technology. None of which are very newsworthy, but the columnist still had a little space to fill even though he already combined two stories into one report.
Please do not freak out. For those of you who were mislead by the headline to think that the FCC was debating the merits of IPv6 or something of the like, you can use the back button on your browser to go looking for a more interesting story on the home page now.
FCC: Let's see... we haven't quite ruined everybody's fun yet. Let's fuck with the Internet.
I didn't even though this was still a viable technology. I thought it had been discarded as one of those pieces of innovation that could have been useful but never truly was.
If the FCC is writing rules for its use, that must mean that it is viable - why write rules for a dead technology?
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
Other, no-registration-required sources can be found here.
You probably shouldn't click this.
When will people learn? The ONLY meaning of broadband is analog transmission (frequency division). The term "broadband" has nothing to do with speed.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Are they going to ban boobs on the Internet too?
We always hear about delivering broadband over powerlines, and while it seems to be possible I thought the problem with wide scale adoption is the transformers that regulate the voltage delivered to your house. Personally I think wireless will be a much better solution. Just stick the access points in the existing cell phone towers, or is that too logical?
I saw Scottland was considering running broadband using sewers. Now that crap is fast. We're not talking peanuts either, but fiber rich high throughput with full traffic shaping and end to end tapering.
When I took my first networking class, they told us it was important the WE knew the difference, but that the general masses didn't make the distinction and that trying to correct the error of their ways was futile.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Sorry, when people use a wrong definition too much, then the wrong definition gets associated with the word in the dictionaries and then becomes an acceptable definition.
Bitrate and bandwidth have unfortunately become interchangable terms in common culture, even though us geeks know that there's a subtile difference.
Could someone please explain how a long (several kms) unshielded wire is different than an antenna?
It would seem to me that transmitting "broadband" data, which will span a wide range of frequencies if it is going to be high-speed (and immune to noise), isn't going to just cause broadband interference?
Cable modems get away because the cable itself is coaxial and thus shielded.
Even most telephone wire is buried in the ground...
But powerlines? I just don't see how it is going to work
am i the only one who cant tell if this is a win or a loss for consumers? please enlighten me!
Somewhere on this page I have hidden my signature.
Heres my question for all the law-people on /. - if the FCC decides to regulate VoIP, what happens if I start my own personal VoIP network? Must I be regulated too?
Yet another case of neophyte biz-marketeers turning geek-jargon into bizwords. "Broadband" is only the width of the channel, "throughput" is more important. Also, "baud" is not necessarily a "bit" ("baud" is one packet of signal waveforms in linear combinations of FSK/PSK/ASK etc in a unit-time), etc. etc.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
er... what about hacking?
Can I just walk into an office somewhere, plug in my laptop (with BB over power adaptor) and wahey, I'm on the network?
Imagine that - having to put firewalls on all your power sockets. I mean, it's essentially like having RJ45s all over your house/office isn't it.
BB over power - hacking has never been so easy...
Who says home powerline doesn't work? I use it in a 4500 sqft house with 40 y.o. electrical wiring and it works great everywhere. Even with a signal booster, my previous 11b wireless network only worked in 1/2 the house. Plus, my linksys WiFi crap never worked with anyone else's hardware, but all my powerline stuff plays together quite nicely...
And according to this "definition", 'broadband' can be equated to a speed.
And remember what happened to these bright new ideas? (well, most of them?) Oh yeah, jack.
So I wouldn't give much credibility to these either. VoIP and power-line internet aren't exactly front page news.
sulli
RTFJ.
If our Internet is not delivered within thirty minutes, do we get it for free?
So I read the headline and thought "So is the FCC putting out a declaration that GW Bush 'discovered' the internet?"
What with it being an election year and all...
Mr. Copps also criticized the majority of the commission for rejecting a request by law enforcement agencies that the F.C.C. first work out the legal and technical problems in monitoring phone calls over the Internet before granting Pulver's application or considering new rules for the Internet-based phone services.
I thought broad band was a group of chicks playing some tunes...
MoFscker
Broadband over power line (BPL)
Hmm where does this fall on the good idea scale? They are talking about running RF signals over miles of unshielded cable. NTIA filed comments strongly opposing it. This horse is dead before the starting gate even opens.
BPL is being touted as bringing broadband internet to rural areas not served by DSL or cable modem. However, if you read the fine print you'll find that the signal can be pushed less distance then either (DSL/cable) technology. This means infrastructure overbuild costs will prevent it being deployed in anything but densely populated areas. The whole rural service thing is just a smoke screen.
VOIP Regulation
Its not broken so why does the FCC need to "fix" it? I can't find too many examples of government utility regulation actually improving things. The CALEA (Communications Assistance to Law Enforement Act) points are moot as a wiretap order would permit them to tap the IP service just as easily as the phone line. The main issue is that the telcos see that "consumers" will now become their own providers and they (telcos) will be pushed to irrelavancy in the long term. Change and adaptation come slower to telcos than it does the music industry.
With any luck the FCC will deliver the coup-de-grace to BPL and keeps its fingers out of VoIP other than to declare IP end-to-end calls as outside the scope of regulation and IP to PSTN as only in regulatory scope at the point of interconnection to the PSTN.
So this sounds good..
...ohhh that's right... the spammers ARE the advertising companies looking for a new place to spam in the best interests of the consumer.
"Consumers will be able to plug their modems directly into the wall sockets just as they do with any garden variety appliance"
ohhh yeah! Hackers thine evil bits shall meet the wrath of my toaster oven!!
Will my floor lamp blink when my imClone stocks fall to $60 a share??
Will I have to worry about a backdoor being installed covertly on my fridge and making my milk curdle?
Will my George Foreman Grill become an open spam relay peddling viagra to all the braun shaver users worldwide?
MY GOD MAN, HAVE WE NOT LEARNED ANYTHING FROM MICROSOFT PRODUCTS?????
So just how well should I trust the "secured" network interface of my BlendOmatic-2006XS 5-in-1 blender-oven?
As previously covered at Slashdot here... The Federal Emergency Management Agency submitted comments to the FCC stating their desire to not see BPL go into widespread implementation. Apparently it interferes with high frequency radio transmissions which are used by FEMA and others (think HAM radio operators). You can see FEMA's comments and a FAQ on the objections (slanted towards the HAM radio operators) here Forgot to add that in these post-9/11 times, it will be interesting to see who wins, Dept. of Homeland Security and their paranoia over infrastructure or the free-market wheelers and dealers at the FCC who think regulation is for the birds.
. . .since everyone has power lines.
Well no, actually, they don't. There are those that generate their own power, and the numbers, while still small, grow steadily.
That's taking for granted that they have electricity at all, since we're talking about computer usage.
KFG
"BAUD" is the measurement of symbols per second.
16 BAUD of 8 level FSK would be 48 bits/second. (16 symbols per second, 3 bits per symbol).
That thing that sticks out into the water that the ship is tied up or moored to is a pier or maybe a wharf. It ain't a dock.
Should those of us familiar with nautical terminology look down on those that aren't? That's what you're doing here. The meaning of the term "broadband" when applied in the vernacular sense to "internet service" is clear even if the usage not correct in the technical sense. Just like saying a ship is "docked" is perfectly clear in the landlubber's environment, but would get you laughed off the bridge in a nautical environment.
FCC rules that "Pure VoIP that NEVER connects to the PSTN is not subject to 'the telecommunications regulations'. "
One interesting implication of this ruling is that suddenly there's a significant benefit to VoIP providers to directly and transparently interconnect/interoperate their services.
Instead of
- Is it on My Network?
- Else dump it to the PSTN
style services, we could now see VoIP evolving to operate more like- Is it on My Network?
- Is it on the network of any of the VoIP services I 'peer' directly with?
- Else dump it to the PSTN
The industry already has (mostly?) functional standardised interfaces and interoperation between VoIP and PSTN, this ruling will strongly encourage true interoperability amongst VoIP providers, and transparent interoperability generally leads to competition on the basis of quality and services rather than purely on technology and customer-lock-ins.Now they just need to require that where the VoIP service interfaces with the PSTN they must fully support E911 and phone-number-mobility (ie like cell providers have recently been required) then you'd have a very fair and competitive environment encouraging strong growth in the both the Internet Service and Telecommunications industries.
I mean seriously! In what way is a VoIP call that connects to a PSTN/legacy telecoms phone different to one from a Mobile Phone to a PSTN number? The only real diference is the medium of transmission (irrespective of the direction-of-calling, even).
The "telecommunications regulations" really apply to the infrastructure. Many of the regulations specifically relate to "how can we ensure the infrastructure reaches ALL parts of the community in a fair and reasonable manner". If you *never* use that infrastructure, then many those regulations just plain make no sense, would imply double-billing (or even triple-billing) of fees or would be unreasonably burdensome.
For example - VoIP over an ADSL customer.
- telecoms fees apply to the physical line for the local phone company
- internet service fees aply to the ADSL/Internet connection via the ISP
- VoIP - so should the telecoms fees apply again?
Now if that VoIP call connected across to the PSTN, then fees apply (ie at the point of connecting to the PSTN, telecoms fees apply to the connecting line - like always; any per-call telecoms fees would also apply, naturally).Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Regulators agreed Thursday to set rules for telephone calls made online, and for technology to allow computer users to reach the Internet through a household electric outlet.
The Federal Communications Commission said it would decide how to regulate calls made via high-speed Internet connections, which bypass at least part of the conventional phone network.
Among the issues to be discussed is whether such calls should be subject to the same fees as regular telephone service, such for 911 emergency services or bringing telephone service to poor and rural areas, schools and libraries. Also to be decided is whether these new services need to pay fees to local telephone companies to complete calls to conventional phones.
Separately, the FCC said it would later develop rules concerning law enforcement, such as making sure that the technology that allows Internet calls also allows investigators to tap and trace them.
The commission also voted to develop rules that would allow the power lines that bring electricity to homes and businesses to also deliver high-speed Internet connections.
Once a utility or a company it contracts with installs the necessary equipment, a computer user would only have to plug the machine into a special modem that plugs into a conventional electric outlet, according to Jay Birnbaum, vice president of Current Technologies, a company now testing such connections in the Washington suburbs.
Even as it develops rules governing Internet phone calls, the commission decided that one such service, Free World Dialup, was not subject to the same regulations as regular phones. Internet users can join Free World Dialup at no cost and make calls to each other without using the conventional phones. They use special numbers to route the calls rather than 10-digit phone numbers.
Aside from the sheer disturbance to the ham community and worldwide communications, as well as possibly satellite (and interplanetary someday?) communications, I dont like the idea of having gobs of RF coming from my power sockets. 60 cycle hum is bad enough, we're going to have to filter every audio component even more, as well as figure out how to rf protect our devices. some old and new stuff just wasnt designed to take rf directly into its components. Plus, electrocution now comes with fun burns, not to mention increased headaches for those of us who are RF sensitive to begin with. FCC should leave well enough alone.
If I were in the (highly regulated) business of selling local dial-tone, I would set up a subsidiary that just did TCP/IP networking over all the dark fiber in the US, and then sell VOIP over it. My marketing point would be "higher-quality connections with fewer drop-outs". A friend has Vonage, and while it works great off-peak hours, during lunch hours (when everyone at work is surfing instead of working), or if a big news story breaks, you can't understand him.
Chip H.
All HF nets will be wiped out. CAP, MARS, and all other emergency nets will be gone. The FCC has totally and completely caved in to money interests. Whatever happened to the concept that the airwaves are "public?" The FCC just privatized the entire HF spectrum! And they are giving it away for free!
This is great news! The FCC is looking into the future and seeing what great quality of life leaps will happen with Broadband-over-PowerLine. After 10 years of consumer Internet access, the next frontier for Internet connectivity is clearly the kitchen. There are unfathomable benefits to having toasters, blenders, and microwave ovens access the Internet. I see BPL as the way to provide that interconnectivity, without the downsides of other options:
1) Giving kitchen appliances wireless cards: Lots of people have tried hacking their toasters to support existing 802.11b standards, but these hacks are overly expensive and don't work on a large scale.
2) Redesigning and remodeling kitchens to have ethernet jacks: This will happen over time, but in the short run it's too expensive to retrofit existing homes. In addition, having to run a wire from a toaster to both a power and ethernet jack adds too much clutter to countertops.
BPL has none of these detractions of the above options. Toasters and microwaves can be connected to the Internet as easily as they're plugged in to a power jack, and no kitchen remodelling is necessary. Clearly ham radio and emergency service disruption is a small price to pay for the overwhelming benefits of kitchen appliance interconnectivity.
I applaud the FCC's forward thinking on in this area.
my blog
Just like with the mass media ownership rule changes in which the FCC ignored the facts and the public, clueless Powell did the same with BPL.
The FCC cited adaptive technolgies as being able to mitigate interference. The truth is, adaptive technologies can't protect receive only stations because they don't transmit and can't assert their need for a clear frequency. It's likely that adaptive technologies will also be unable to recognize lower powered transmit stations.
It's rather ironic the FCC met with a BPL equipment vendor in late January to discuss adaptive technology.
One of the Commisioners stated that interference concerns were unproven. There has been models proving the interference potential and field measurements showing interference filed with the FCC. There's been no proof that adaptive technologies in BPL will mitigate interference.
So the FCC doesn't stop BPL due to proven interference issues, and justifies continued deployment on a technology that hasn't been proven to work in the field or using common sense engineering. They essentially ignored 5000 comments filed against BPL and showcased unproven "interference mitigation" technology hyped by an equipment vendor.
It's time that the boobs at the FCC are exposed, not at the Superbowl.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB005
/EX
ARLB005 FCC okays BPL proposal
ZCZC AG05
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 5 ARLB005
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT February 12, 2004
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB005
ARLB005 FCC okays BPL proposal
The FCC has unanimously approved a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) to deploy Broadband over Power Line (BPL). The NPRM is the
next step in the BPL proceeding, which began last April with a
Notice of Inquiry that attracted more than 5100 comments--many from
the amateur community. The FCC did not propose any changes in Part
15 rules governing unlicensed devices, but said it would require BPL
providers to apply ''adaptive'' interference mitigation techniques
to their systems. An ARRL delegation that included President Jim
Haynie, W5JBP, attended the FCC open meeting in Washington, and
later expressed disappointment in the FCC action.
''The Commission clearly recognized that the existing Part 15
emission limits are inadequate to stop interference, but it's
placing the burden of interference mitigation on the licensed user
that's supposed to be protected,'' said ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ.
Sumner said that if the FCC really believed current Part 15 emission
limits were sufficient, it would not have had to require that BPL
providers institute interference mitigation systems. The FCC has not
yet released the actual NPRM, and a presentation by the FCC's Office
of Engineering and Technology (OET) revealed only its broad
outlines. Sumner said the League would not take a formal position
until it reviews the full NPRM.
Anh Wride of the OET staff spelled out the scope of the NPRM, which
only addresses so-called ''access BPL''--the type that would apply
radio frequency energy to exterior overhead and underground low and
medium-voltage power lines to distribute broadband and Internet
service. She said the OET staff believes that interference concerns
''can be adequately addressed.'' Wride said the FCC's BPL NPRM:
* Applies existing Part 15 emission limits for unlicensed
carrier-current systems to BPL systems. Part 15 rules now require
that BPL systems eliminate any harmful interference that may occur
''and must cease operation if they cannot,'' she noted.
* Requires BPL systems to employ ''adaptive interference-mitigation
techniques, including the capabilities to shut down a specific
device, to reduce power levels on a dynamic or remote-control basis
and to include or exclude specific operating frequencies or bands.''
* Subjects BPL providers to notification requirements that would
establish a public database to include such information as the
location of BPL devices, modulation type and operating frequencies.
* Proposes guidelines to provide for consistent and repeatable
measurement of the RF emissions from BPL and other carrier-current
systems.
Mirroring his colleagues' enthusiasm, FCC Chairman Michael Powell
called BPL ''tremendously exciting.'' While conceding that BPL has
''a long way to go,'' the chairman said it could be ''the great
broadband hope for a good part of rural America.'' Powell also said
the FCC's OET has worked very hard to try to ''get their hands
around'' the issue of interference and that the FCC would continue
its vigilance in that area.
The FCC is expected to issue the complete Notice of Proposed Rule
Making within a few days and will invite comments on it sometime
after its publication.
Additional information about BPL and Amateur Radio is on the ARRL
Web site, www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/.
NNNN
Hams have also been on the forefront of other technologies, such as single sideband, FM, television, software-defined radios, and digital transmission, to name a few. To quote the IARU:
BPL (Broadband over power lines, or PLC as it's known elsewhere in the world) is nothing more than a spectrum grab by the big utilities who want to use unlicensed, uncoordinated systems to cash in on the Internet craze, without considering the importance of the incumbent duly-licensed users of those frequencies. It's akin to buying a ticket to attend the theater, and having the dialogue drowned out by the person sitting next to you talking loudly. You wouldn't let anyone who wants one buy a big ugly army vehicle and drive around intimidating other drivers as though he or she owns the road, would you? Oh, wait...
And I'll say it again - "ham" is not an abbreviation or acronym, so don't capitalize it!