The key to why cable-modem service is an information service is contained in your definition (48) of Telecommunications. "without changin in the form or content of the information as sent and recieved". The "form" of the information you receive through the your cable modem is (most likely) different then the "form" it was sent in. For WWW page loads coming into the network is probably TCP/IP over T1 and when it gets to you its TCP/IP over Cable (not sure what the standard is), so the "form" of the information has changed. May not be the best definition (I'm not sure if I agree with it), but it is the definition being used. Write your congressman if you disagree with the definition and urge them to reform the TA of 1996.
And I agree that the executive does have the power to check the legislative. So the President should do something, but the FCC isn't part of the either branch, it is a seperate entity entirely.
Yes, with the exception of voice communications (when you actually call up somebody to talk). Though I guess you could consider talking to somebody "retrieving information", that not the interpretaion being used.
Write your congressman and let them know how you feel. Maybe its time for another Telecom Act.
And cable television providers are not under the same rules as telcos - they contract with local governments, who typically guarantee monopoly within a particular geographic area in exchange for universal availability of service and public access programming. These contracts are outside the realm of the FCC but well within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
While I'm not sure about the jurisdiction of those contracts, I am sure that Cable Television falls squarely under the the jursidiction of the FCC. Check out theTelecom Act of 1934 which created the FCC and gives it jursidiction over "wire and radio communication services".
Y'know, I don't care about the cable regulation one way or the other as much as some people, but I think the FCC has really missed the boat on their classification of the service here. What people have demonstrated that they want, time and time again, is connectivity. We want a high-speed telecommunications service. If we want an information service too, we'll get a web browser, or something like that. We don't need the FCC to decide for us what we want; we know what we want.
I have to disagree that the FCC missed the boat on their classification. Based on current regulation (Telecom Act of 1996), Cable-Modem service is an Information Service!
INFORMATION SERVICE.--The term ''information service'' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
The FCC is just interpreting the laws that Congress has passed! And I agree with their interpretation. But that doesn't mean I agree that Cable companies should be able to keep their networks closed. I think that Data Services (people who deliver raw bandwith) should (probably) be regulated like Voice traffic and enforced competition. But the FCC really isnt' the one to blame, it's Congress. Write your Congress-person!
This will never happen or if it does, it won't last long. The greatest way to lose a customer is to limit their choices with your product. The second my cable company says I can't visit xyz.com over their IP network, I get a new provider and tell my friends about it. Since, I don't think my response will be unique, I doubt that sort of policy will last for the cable company
Actually, it will be worse than just "you can't visit xyz.com". It will probably be more like "you can go to xyz.com, for $4.95 a month". While blocking a single site may not be that bad (after all, there are ways around it). How about when the Cable Company starts charging your for playing Quake on-line (or any on-line games for that matter).
Remember who you are dealing with. Cable companies like the idea of "premuim service" (have you ever seen what channels are on the basic service?). They like the idea of "pay-per-view". If they are running your IP pipe, they will try and put their "Cable Views" into an IP world. DSL isn't much better, as the Telco's want to put their "Telco View" into an IP world.
Why can't I get wireless results and news updates for olympic events? I can go to any of the bloated/javascript required sites to get results, but not really anything small and simple that can be loaded on my Palm! The closest I've come is Yahoo, who has a pretty light page.
And how about wireless updates? SMS? Even short e-mails that I could send to my phone? Doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure they had this kind of thing for the 2000 Summer Games, but I guess the US just isn't with it.
Anybody have any information on this? I would try and load slc2002.com in "Blazer" on my Handspring, but I would be here all day and it would look like crap (too much javascript and pop-up menu's etc.).
The wording of the patent seems to indicate they are patenting the buffering to disk of live broadcasts in a "virtual segment within a continuous stream which moves forward in time with the stream" (their wording). Specifically named features of this patent include: "rewind", "Pause", "frame advance", and "fast forward", but they don't limit it to just those features.
Don't forget the MPEG-2 encoder (for standalone units) and the modem. And the control software.
And remember, TIVO really has very little to do with the hardware (besides maybe specification). They are really a software company. They wrote the software that controls all that hardware, and let other people (Sony, Phillips, etc.) build the hardware. I'm sure TIVO wishes they could get the hardware price down as well, but I don't think they have quite enough volume yet to convince those HW manufacturers to take a smaller profit margin.
I've thought the same thing, but I'll be damned if I can put together that hardware for $150 (without resorting to the closet).
If you want to create your own recored, go ahead and do that (may have some problems trying to sell it...). The biggest thing TIVO and ReplayTV have going for them is that anyone can use it. Remember, 50% of the people out there are below average!
Just to be fair, TIVO is just the latest PVR company to get some patents issued. ReplayTv also had a set of patents (ok, maybe only 1) issued a few weeks ago.
And don't forget that your $400 also covers the software to control the thing. While for most/. readers, the UI of something doesn't matter (have you seen the UI on most open source projects?), it is important for mass appeal (so even my grandmother could use it). And there is some cost associated there.
Bah, damn hardware people always think that software comes for free and that the hardware is the only real cost.
When making vowel sounds, your vocal tract is essentially an uniform tube. This is really easy for a computer to model (as another poster mentioned, a simple FFT), as opposed to ficatives and plosives, which involves contrictions in the vocal tract that are harder to model (since the effect they have on the sound signal is to not make it complety sinusoidal).
How can we let the FBI use a closed-source Keylogger? If it were open source, we could verify that they aren't "wire-tapping" communications with it. I think there should be at least an independent review of the code...
Anybody out there know what it was? The affidavit implies that it was put into court records at some point in time (at least the output of the KLS was). Just curious, thinking its something like NickyS or BaddaBing.
I was under the impression that part of the reason that it didn't log everything was to keep from possibly recording communications (Which would need a different kind of court order, along the lines of a phone tap).
Here's the IETF's ENUM working group charter. If you read this as opposed to the news article, the whole scheme may make a bit more sense.
Reading through the charter (And glancing at the RFC, I don't see where they came up with the "number for every person" idea. To me, it looks like they are just giving FQDN to devices that have phone numbers. ie. your cell phone (which may be able to recieve short messages), can now have its own FQDN so internet users can address it.
Then you may want to check out the PC-Ephone. Seems like it may do a lot of what you want. Problems? The two biggest I see are Windows CE and the price. Though the "base station" may be a bit bulky too.
Slashdot Mirror
The key to why cable-modem service is an information service is contained in your definition (48) of Telecommunications. "without changin in the form or content of the information as sent and recieved". The "form" of the information you receive through the your cable modem is (most likely) different then the "form" it was sent in. For WWW page loads coming into the network is probably TCP/IP over T1 and when it gets to you its TCP/IP over Cable (not sure what the standard is), so the "form" of the information has changed. May not be the best definition (I'm not sure if I agree with it), but it is the definition being used. Write your congressman if you disagree with the definition and urge them to reform the TA of 1996.
And I agree that the executive does have the power to check the legislative. So the President should do something, but the FCC isn't part of the either branch, it is a seperate entity entirely.
Yes, with the exception of voice communications (when you actually call up somebody to talk). Though I guess you could consider talking to somebody "retrieving information", that not the interpretaion being used.
Write your congressman and let them know how you feel. Maybe its time for another Telecom Act.
While I'm not sure about the jurisdiction of those contracts, I am sure that Cable Television falls squarely under the the jursidiction of the FCC. Check out theTelecom Act of 1934 which created the FCC and gives it jursidiction over "wire and radio communication services".
I have to disagree that the FCC missed the boat on their classification. Based on current regulation (Telecom Act of 1996), Cable-Modem service is an Information Service!
The FCC is just interpreting the laws that Congress has passed! And I agree with their interpretation. But that doesn't mean I agree that Cable companies should be able to keep their networks closed. I think that Data Services (people who deliver raw bandwith) should (probably) be regulated like Voice traffic and enforced competition. But the FCC really isnt' the one to blame, it's Congress. Write your Congress-person!
Actually, it will be worse than just "you can't visit xyz.com". It will probably be more like "you can go to xyz.com, for $4.95 a month". While blocking a single site may not be that bad (after all, there are ways around it). How about when the Cable Company starts charging your for playing Quake on-line (or any on-line games for that matter).
Remember who you are dealing with. Cable companies like the idea of "premuim service" (have you ever seen what channels are on the basic service?). They like the idea of "pay-per-view". If they are running your IP pipe, they will try and put their "Cable Views" into an IP world. DSL isn't much better, as the Telco's want to put their "Telco View" into an IP world.
Why can't I get wireless results and news updates for olympic events? I can go to any of the bloated/javascript required sites to get results, but not really anything small and simple that can be loaded on my Palm! The closest I've come is Yahoo, who has a pretty light page.
And how about wireless updates? SMS? Even short e-mails that I could send to my phone? Doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure they had this kind of thing for the 2000 Summer Games, but I guess the US just isn't with it.
Anybody have any information on this? I would try and load slc2002.com in "Blazer" on my Handspring, but I would be here all day and it would look like crap (too much javascript and pop-up menu's etc.).
I was just wondering if slashdot had any information on LCD monitor reviews... This is scary...
The wording of the patent seems to indicate they are patenting the buffering to disk of live broadcasts in a "virtual segment within a continuous stream which moves forward in time with the stream" (their wording). Specifically named features of this patent include: "rewind", "Pause", "frame advance", and "fast forward", but they don't limit it to just those features.
Don't forget the MPEG-2 encoder (for standalone units) and the modem. And the control software.
And remember, TIVO really has very little to do with the hardware (besides maybe specification). They are really a software company. They wrote the software that controls all that hardware, and let other people (Sony, Phillips, etc.) build the hardware. I'm sure TIVO wishes they could get the hardware price down as well, but I don't think they have quite enough volume yet to convince those HW manufacturers to take a smaller profit margin.
I've thought the same thing, but I'll be damned if I can put together that hardware for $150 (without resorting to the closet).
If you want to create your own recored, go ahead and do that (may have some problems trying to sell it...). The biggest thing TIVO and ReplayTV have going for them is that anyone can use it. Remember, 50% of the people out there are below average!
Just to be fair, TIVO is just the latest PVR company to get some patents issued. ReplayTv also had a set of patents (ok, maybe only 1) issued a few weeks ago.
/. readers, the UI of something doesn't matter (have you seen the UI on most open source projects?), it is important for mass appeal (so even my grandmother could use it). And there is some cost associated there.
And don't forget that your $400 also covers the software to control the thing. While for most
Bah, damn hardware people always think that software comes for free and that the hardware is the only real cost.
As usual, when all the mirrors are swamped: find it on P2P.
When making vowel sounds, your vocal tract is essentially an uniform tube. This is really easy for a computer to model (as another poster mentioned, a simple FFT), as opposed to ficatives and plosives, which involves contrictions in the vocal tract that are harder to model (since the effect they have on the sound signal is to not make it complety sinusoidal).
Damn usenet rules strikes again. Goes something like:
There is always a spelling error in a flame on grammer.
and vice-versa... And I even checked for this!!! Damn.
How can we let the FBI use a closed-source Keylogger? If it were open source, we could verify that they aren't "wire-tapping" communications with it. I think there should be at least an independent review of the code...
Anybody out there know what it was? The affidavit implies that it was put into court records at some point in time (at least the output of the KLS was). Just curious, thinking its something like NickyS or BaddaBing.
I was under the impression that part of the reason that it didn't log everything was to keep from possibly recording communications (Which would need a different kind of court order, along the lines of a phone tap).
Nothing like a spelling/grammar flame war to get things going...
Hey Taco - Where are the Quickies? I haven't seen ANY in quite sometime (and I could usually find a couple things in there to lighten my day)
Other reports I've read indicated that the poll asked very leading questions...
fp
Here's the IETF's ENUM working group charter. If you read this as opposed to the news article, the whole scheme may make a bit more sense.
Reading through the charter (And glancing at the RFC, I don't see where they came up with the "number for every person" idea. To me, it looks like they are just giving FQDN to devices that have phone numbers. ie. your cell phone (which may be able to recieve short messages), can now have its own FQDN so internet users can address it.
Then you may want to check out the PC-Ephone. Seems like it may do a lot of what you want. Problems? The two biggest I see are Windows CE and the price. Though the "base station" may be a bit bulky too.
You can check out more information on their TTS project here and create your own samples here.