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.
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
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.
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
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...
If you do VoIP around your own house, you're using a PBX which the FCC doesn't care about.
If you're doing person-to-person and computer-to-computer VoIP with people you've already met some other way to avoid phone calls, you're okay.
If you're doing VoIP that's connecting to the PTSN somehow in place of the "last mile", the FCC wants to have a talk with you.
I can't tell, but when I read just the headline at NYT.com
"F.C.C. Begins Rewriting Rules on Delivery of the Internet"
my gut reaction was "Oh, crap, this is going to be bad."
How many others had a similar thought?
It is a bit depressing that Mike Powell's FCC engenders that kind of response.
the future is here, it is just not evenly distributed - w. gibson
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.