I know the cable companies are legally required not to encrypt rebroadcasts of the major networks.
You should be able to get digital rebroadcasts of the major networks as part of a basic cable package without paying for a dedicated "digital" package.
The exception is that currently, there are laws that require cable providers to carry the analog OTA networks, and I believe they are required to do it as part of "basic" packages (I don't know the details). These laws haven't been updated for digital, so there are cases where cable companies carry a network in analog but not digital. (Time Warner Southern Tier vs. WBNG for example). Hopefully these exceptions will be resolved by 2009, I want my WBNG.:)
Note that they are not required to rebroadcast the OTA digitals in the same modulation format, so typically they'll package a bunch of separate ATSC channels into a small handful of QAM channels. They can do this for a few reasons:
1) Most ATSC OTA channels aren't being used to full capacity. The legal headaches of using someone else's free bandwidth of a subchannel are painful. 2) The QAM modulation used for digital cable is much more efficient spectrum-wise. It has lower multipath tolerance and higher SNR requirement than the 8VSB modulation used for ATSC, but on a cable system those disadvantages are negligible. QAM offers something like 35+ megabits/second vs. 19.2 for ATSC.
You can find plenty of QAM receivers for unencrypted digital cable signals, some that work very well with PCs like the HDHomeRun.
There is no difference. The only difference is that typically, most DTV signals have been in the UHF bands and most broadcast analog is down in the VHF bands. In many markets one needed a combined VHF/UHF antenna for all stations, but could just use a UHF-only antenna for everything if you just wanted digital. Note that there are not separate digital and analog bands officially - digital and analog currently share the same broadcast TV allocations, it's just that VHF was pretty crowded so most of the new DTV stations wound up in the far less crowded UHF bands.
I believe that some shifting is planned for after the big 2009 analog shutoff.
Agree. The experience at my parents' house is the same. There's a huge difference between the official definition of "watchable" SNR that was used to calculate the digital transmission powers needed to match coverage and what is actually watchable - the bar set by the legal definition is pretty high SNR-wise.
I've never noticed power differences for FM stations based on time of day, and I don't think such a thing would even be legal for them. If you're in a fringe area, you might be observing propagation differences that APPEAR to be transmit power adjustments but are only changes in atmospheric phenomena (mainly tropospheric ducting at VHF, which is heavily temperature dependent).
Power adjustments for AM based on time of day are a legal requirement due to changes in ionospheric propagation phenomenon depending on night vs. day.
The only consistent degradation of broadcast signals I have seen is when the majority of the primary TV broadcast transmitters for the New York City market were destroyed on 9/11/2001.
Yeah, but all of the digital stations are power-reduced to compensate.
The problem is that the official definition of "good enough" analog SNR that was used to calculate the needed digital transmit power is way above what many people consider watchable.
i.e. probably every NYC station is not considered "watchable" by the legal standards at my parents' house, but my parents have been watching TV for years there.
It doesn't help that NIMBY is keeping the Seacacus TV tower from getting built, and all the NYC stations have been forced to run reduced power ever since 9/11 knocked out most of their primary transmitters and everyone had to go to backups on the ESB. Only stations that had the ESB as a primary to begin with still have good reception.
Not going to happen. Most of these people will have the $40 converter boxes, and buying flatscreens will not help them. Buying a new antenna might, but that's not any good for you, just for Channel Master, Winegard and the like.
Probably bad for Terk, since people will realize how crap the majority of their product line is compared to CM and Winegard.
The lines outside the Best Buy won't be bad until everyone realizes that Best Buy carries nothing that will help them.
Lowes and Home Depot are the only major brick and mortar chains that I have seen which carry decent TV reception (antenna and preamp) equipment. The antennas sold by Best Buy, CC, and such are crappy little antennas which claim to have all this preamplification that will pull in lots of signals.
Yeah, they have preamps, but garbage in garbage out. The dominating factor in a reception system's noise figure is going to be the antenna first, and THEN the preamp.
My parents are basically screwed when the changeover occurs unless they sign up for cable. They've got one of the largest V/U combo antennas available and a good Channel Master preamp, but still can't get reliable NYC HD reception thanks to the local terrain. Their analog reception isn't too hot, but it is watchable. Their digital reception for most channels is nil.
Yup. Texas isn't the only location. Upstate NY (I live near Binghamton) is another cheap area. Live like a king on $65k or like a pauper on $85k+? Not surprised the jobs are getting moved away from SV. Companies don't want to pay that extra $20k+/year just to make up for COL differences.
Same here. My girlfriend is from Buffalo and when going to visit her family we often go over to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. (The view is much better and as a result all the nice hotels and bars/clubs are on the Canadian side, while the United States side is an industrial ghetto for the most part.)
I'm going to be getting an EDL as soon as I can. 15 minutes for the application down the road from me plus typical DMV mailorder time (2-3 weeks) is better than the royal pain in the ass of ordering a passport and waiting 6-8+ weeks for it to arrive. Plus the passport is easier to lose (doesn't fit in wallet, isn't normally carried with me).
No they are not. U.S. emissions laws for NOx emissions are MUCH stricter than in Europe. So while diesels have never had trouble meeting emissions laws in Europe, for the past 4-5 years it has been impossible for a diesel engine to meet passenger car emissions standards. (Light trucks and large trucks have lower standards, which is why car manufacturers loved SUVs until the goverment started cracking down on them emissions-wise.)
This is starting to change this year, but the pollution control technologies required to meet U.S. emissions standards are expensive. Ford is likely selling these 65 mpg Fiestas without such pollution control hardware because it's not necessary in Europe.
Just as an FYI - I don't know about the new diesel technologies, but the engine and fuel system improvements required to meet California PZEV requirements (and meet PZEV requirements in states that have adopted California's emissions standards like New York) cost the manufacturer approximately $1500. Fortunately most states give manufacturers tax breaks for selling PZEVs so it only costs the consumer around $200 more in the end. On a tiny cheap car like the Fiesta, $1500+ would be a big chunk of the sticker price.
At least this one didn't make any "The FCC will be obsolete!" claims.
As someone else said, there's not much to prevent rogue radios from abusing the system. Also, wideband receivers are extremely difficult to design. If you design an extremely wideband receiver, you give up one of the following: Low power Good interference rejection Low cost
All the DSP in the world isn't going to help you if your receiver frontend is overloaded.
One thing to keep in mind regarding the "nano" TiO2 - It only produces its strong oxidizing effects when exposed to ultraviolet light. When it is in a dark area (such as inside the human body) it would be very inert.
As another poster said, TiO2 is already heavily used as part of sunscreens.
No reason you can't pair a larger engine with a hybrid drive train. (Which is what I believe GM is starting with on some of their truck hybrids with their belt alternator/starter ghetto hybrid approach)
The great thing about hybrids is that the torque characteristics of electric motors are a perfect complement to internal combustion engines - Electrics can generate enormous amount of torque at low speeds. If the traction control limiting system of a Prius is disabled I've heard it can burn some serious rubber due to the torque.
Keep in mind that the kings of all towing machines (Diesel train engines) are effectively series electric hybrids without a battery. This is because of the incredible torque capability of electric motors.
"Diesel = "macho" and only studly large trucks are allowed that."
I wish there were a -5 Dead Wrong moderation option. Diesel passenger vehicles currently don't exist in the U.S. simply because passenger vehicle emissions standards became so tough that no diesel engine could meet them without ULSD. Large trucks had looser emissions requirements. Even Volkswagen (probably the most prolific manufacturer of diesel passenger vehicles sold in the U.S.) stopped selling diesels in the U.S. for a few years. Now that ULSD is mandatory in the U.S. and diesel technology has advanced even more, diesel passenger vehicles are coming back in the next year or two.
Actually even VW stopped selling TDI passenger vehicles in the U.S. for a while due to tightening emissions standards.
It basically became impossible for a diesel to meet United States passenger car emissions standards until ultra low sulfur diesel became mandated by the U.S. government (garbage in garbage out).
Larger vehicles have typically had relaxed emissions standards, which is why you do see diesel pickup trucks (and larger vehicles). (It's also why automakers loved SUVs until the government cracked down on them emissions-wise, they were originally classified as trucks and could have excessively polluting cheap powertrains.)
ULSD + advances in technology is allowing diesel passenger vehicles to return to the U.S. starting in the next year or so. I think VW targeted the 2009 model year (so available now very likely), and Subaru is targeting MY 2010 for a 2.0 turbodiesel in the U.S.
Or the HTC Touch Pro (not yet released for AT&T but coming in a month or so most likely)
The only thing from your list missing is a decent camera, but that's something you're just plain never going to see in a cell phone. There's just no room for a decent sized sensor to get acceptable noise performance.
Sad to say it, but Windows Mobile phones are probably the most widely available "open for developers" phones out there. WM does have app signing, but every WM phone I've seen allows the user to easily override the signing function. It's basically "This app is unsigned, are you sure you want to run it? Yes/No" - The nice thing is that the phone *remembers* this answer until the app's hash changes.
Most current Linux phones are heavily locked down (such as the Motorola MOTOMAGX based phones).
Android based phones don't exist yet, and some of Google's comments imply that they will be allowing carrier lockdown.
I've heard a lot of Symbian phones are also heavily locked down and won't run apps unless they are signed. It's a moot point if you're in the U.S. because Symbian phones are pretty rare here.
I have an AT&T Tilt (HTC Kaiser aka HTC TyTn II) and I love it.
The standard isn't broken. It simply was not designed to accommodate "dumb" chargers, no one thought of them when it was designed.
The USB specification disallows current consumption greater than 100 mA unless the device has requested more from a USB host. As a result, a device can only charge without a PC if one of the following is true: 1) The device violates the USB specification 2) The device requires less than 100 mA 3) The device has some way of knowing that a "dumb" charger is connected and it can draw more than 100 mA without a PC connected. This is not part of the USB 2.0 spec as the USB 2.0 spec was finalized well before USB became popular for charging mobile devices. As a result it's done in nonstandard ways, although there is a de facto standard of grounding the 5th (normally not connected) pin of a Mini-USB plug. Motorola uses this as do quite a few other manufacturers. What other devices' USB charger did you connect it to?
I believe USB 3.0 addresses the "dumb charger" issue, I'm not sure though.
Common to many manufacturers. This is done to avoid violating the USB specification - A device is not permitted to draw more than 100 mA without negotiating with a computer.
There is a de facto standard for signaling the presence of a "dumb" charger to a Mini-USB device (ground a pin that is normally not connected) but this disallows the ability to have a single cable to both sync/charge from PC and charge from a dumb charger. (The grounded pin messes up most device's capability to communicate over USB.)
Well, in some ways many HAVE agreed on a charger standard - and it's USB!
Manufacturers are starting to realize that charging from standard USB ports is less likely to sell "add-ons" like chargers, but FAR more likely to sell the devices themselves due to issues such as this.
Even my new Motorola Talkabout FRS radios have Mini-USB ports for the sole purpose of charging.
Unfortunately manufacturers haven't quite standardized on how to handle "dumb" chargers without violating the USB specification. USB devices are not permitted to draw more than 100 mA without negotiating with a PC for more current. So a manufacturer has three choices: 1) Violate the USB specification (can't put the USB logo on your packaging) 2) Figure out some way to signal the presence of a "dumb" charger to the device, allowing it to draw more than 100 mA (sometimes even more than 500) when connected to such a charger. There's a de facto standard for Mini-USB plugs - There's a pin that is not connected in normal USB operation that "dumb charger" plugs will usually ground. If a device sees that this pin is grounded it will draw as much current as it can. I know these cables can be used with, at the least, Holux GPS receivers, HTC PDAs, and I believe most new Motorola phones and FRS radios. Unfortunately you cannot have a single cable that will both communicate and "dumb charge" from one of those wallwarts that has a USB Type A jack. 3) Limit current to 100 mA (this is unsatisfactory for many devices) 4) Wait for USB 3.0 - Supposedly USB 3.0 has taken this whole issue into consideration.
Since the release of Firefox 3, my previous 2.x installations have at least twice pulled subsequent 2.x upgrades - Why can't I automatically upgrade to Firefox 3? It's not that much harder to manually upgrade, but the automatic 2.x series upgrades process was so simple.
Except the IETF also has no authority - I'm sure Comcasts' actions aren't IETF sanctioned either.
And in this case, the FCC is asserting authority over a government sanctioned (but regulated) monopoly on service through cable television infrastructure, NOT over the Internet itself.
Much of the throttling is protocol-specific and happens no matter what (peak time or not). Many ISPs explicitly target some protocols (BT being the primary and most common example). So if BT consistently slows to a crawl but downloading XP Service Pack 3 is consistently fast - something is potentially wonky.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the cable companies are legally required not to encrypt rebroadcasts of the major networks.
You should be able to get digital rebroadcasts of the major networks as part of a basic cable package without paying for a dedicated "digital" package.
The exception is that currently, there are laws that require cable providers to carry the analog OTA networks, and I believe they are required to do it as part of "basic" packages (I don't know the details). These laws haven't been updated for digital, so there are cases where cable companies carry a network in analog but not digital. (Time Warner Southern Tier vs. WBNG for example). Hopefully these exceptions will be resolved by 2009, I want my WBNG. :)
Note that they are not required to rebroadcast the OTA digitals in the same modulation format, so typically they'll package a bunch of separate ATSC channels into a small handful of QAM channels. They can do this for a few reasons:
1) Most ATSC OTA channels aren't being used to full capacity. The legal headaches of using someone else's free bandwidth of a subchannel are painful.
2) The QAM modulation used for digital cable is much more efficient spectrum-wise. It has lower multipath tolerance and higher SNR requirement than the 8VSB modulation used for ATSC, but on a cable system those disadvantages are negligible. QAM offers something like 35+ megabits/second vs. 19.2 for ATSC.
You can find plenty of QAM receivers for unencrypted digital cable signals, some that work very well with PCs like the HDHomeRun.
There is no difference. The only difference is that typically, most DTV signals have been in the UHF bands and most broadcast analog is down in the VHF bands. In many markets one needed a combined VHF/UHF antenna for all stations, but could just use a UHF-only antenna for everything if you just wanted digital. Note that there are not separate digital and analog bands officially - digital and analog currently share the same broadcast TV allocations, it's just that VHF was pretty crowded so most of the new DTV stations wound up in the far less crowded UHF bands.
I believe that some shifting is planned for after the big 2009 analog shutoff.
Agree. The experience at my parents' house is the same. There's a huge difference between the official definition of "watchable" SNR that was used to calculate the digital transmission powers needed to match coverage and what is actually watchable - the bar set by the legal definition is pretty high SNR-wise.
I've never noticed power differences for FM stations based on time of day, and I don't think such a thing would even be legal for them. If you're in a fringe area, you might be observing propagation differences that APPEAR to be transmit power adjustments but are only changes in atmospheric phenomena (mainly tropospheric ducting at VHF, which is heavily temperature dependent).
Power adjustments for AM based on time of day are a legal requirement due to changes in ionospheric propagation phenomenon depending on night vs. day.
The only consistent degradation of broadcast signals I have seen is when the majority of the primary TV broadcast transmitters for the New York City market were destroyed on 9/11/2001.
Yeah, but all of the digital stations are power-reduced to compensate.
The problem is that the official definition of "good enough" analog SNR that was used to calculate the needed digital transmit power is way above what many people consider watchable.
i.e. probably every NYC station is not considered "watchable" by the legal standards at my parents' house, but my parents have been watching TV for years there.
It doesn't help that NIMBY is keeping the Seacacus TV tower from getting built, and all the NYC stations have been forced to run reduced power ever since 9/11 knocked out most of their primary transmitters and everyone had to go to backups on the ESB. Only stations that had the ESB as a primary to begin with still have good reception.
Not going to happen. Most of these people will have the $40 converter boxes, and buying flatscreens will not help them. Buying a new antenna might, but that's not any good for you, just for Channel Master, Winegard and the like.
Probably bad for Terk, since people will realize how crap the majority of their product line is compared to CM and Winegard.
The lines outside the Best Buy won't be bad until everyone realizes that Best Buy carries nothing that will help them.
Lowes and Home Depot are the only major brick and mortar chains that I have seen which carry decent TV reception (antenna and preamp) equipment. The antennas sold by Best Buy, CC, and such are crappy little antennas which claim to have all this preamplification that will pull in lots of signals.
Yeah, they have preamps, but garbage in garbage out. The dominating factor in a reception system's noise figure is going to be the antenna first, and THEN the preamp.
My parents are basically screwed when the changeover occurs unless they sign up for cable. They've got one of the largest V/U combo antennas available and a good Channel Master preamp, but still can't get reliable NYC HD reception thanks to the local terrain. Their analog reception isn't too hot, but it is watchable. Their digital reception for most channels is nil.
Yup. Texas isn't the only location. Upstate NY (I live near Binghamton) is another cheap area. Live like a king on $65k or like a pauper on $85k+? Not surprised the jobs are getting moved away from SV. Companies don't want to pay that extra $20k+/year just to make up for COL differences.
Same here. My girlfriend is from Buffalo and when going to visit her family we often go over to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. (The view is much better and as a result all the nice hotels and bars/clubs are on the Canadian side, while the United States side is an industrial ghetto for the most part.)
I'm going to be getting an EDL as soon as I can. 15 minutes for the application down the road from me plus typical DMV mailorder time (2-3 weeks) is better than the royal pain in the ass of ordering a passport and waiting 6-8+ weeks for it to arrive. Plus the passport is easier to lose (doesn't fit in wallet, isn't normally carried with me).
Those aren't U.S. gas prices. They're Canadian gas prices converted to USD.
Canada obviously hasn't mandated ULSD or put extra taxes on diesel like the U.S. has.
"Ford is being absolutely positively stupid."
No they are not. U.S. emissions laws for NOx emissions are MUCH stricter than in Europe. So while diesels have never had trouble meeting emissions laws in Europe, for the past 4-5 years it has been impossible for a diesel engine to meet passenger car emissions standards. (Light trucks and large trucks have lower standards, which is why car manufacturers loved SUVs until the goverment started cracking down on them emissions-wise.)
This is starting to change this year, but the pollution control technologies required to meet U.S. emissions standards are expensive. Ford is likely selling these 65 mpg Fiestas without such pollution control hardware because it's not necessary in Europe.
Just as an FYI - I don't know about the new diesel technologies, but the engine and fuel system improvements required to meet California PZEV requirements (and meet PZEV requirements in states that have adopted California's emissions standards like New York) cost the manufacturer approximately $1500. Fortunately most states give manufacturers tax breaks for selling PZEVs so it only costs the consumer around $200 more in the end. On a tiny cheap car like the Fiesta, $1500+ would be a big chunk of the sticker price.
At least this one didn't make any "The FCC will be obsolete!" claims.
As someone else said, there's not much to prevent rogue radios from abusing the system. Also, wideband receivers are extremely difficult to design. If you design an extremely wideband receiver, you give up one of the following:
Low power
Good interference rejection
Low cost
All the DSP in the world isn't going to help you if your receiver frontend is overloaded.
One thing to keep in mind regarding the "nano" TiO2 - It only produces its strong oxidizing effects when exposed to ultraviolet light. When it is in a dark area (such as inside the human body) it would be very inert.
As another poster said, TiO2 is already heavily used as part of sunscreens.
No reason you can't pair a larger engine with a hybrid drive train. (Which is what I believe GM is starting with on some of their truck hybrids with their belt alternator/starter ghetto hybrid approach)
The great thing about hybrids is that the torque characteristics of electric motors are a perfect complement to internal combustion engines - Electrics can generate enormous amount of torque at low speeds. If the traction control limiting system of a Prius is disabled I've heard it can burn some serious rubber due to the torque.
Keep in mind that the kings of all towing machines (Diesel train engines) are effectively series electric hybrids without a battery. This is because of the incredible torque capability of electric motors.
"Diesel = "macho" and only studly large trucks are allowed that."
I wish there were a -5 Dead Wrong moderation option. Diesel passenger vehicles currently don't exist in the U.S. simply because passenger vehicle emissions standards became so tough that no diesel engine could meet them without ULSD. Large trucks had looser emissions requirements. Even Volkswagen (probably the most prolific manufacturer of diesel passenger vehicles sold in the U.S.) stopped selling diesels in the U.S. for a few years. Now that ULSD is mandatory in the U.S. and diesel technology has advanced even more, diesel passenger vehicles are coming back in the next year or two.
Actually even VW stopped selling TDI passenger vehicles in the U.S. for a while due to tightening emissions standards.
It basically became impossible for a diesel to meet United States passenger car emissions standards until ultra low sulfur diesel became mandated by the U.S. government (garbage in garbage out).
Larger vehicles have typically had relaxed emissions standards, which is why you do see diesel pickup trucks (and larger vehicles). (It's also why automakers loved SUVs until the government cracked down on them emissions-wise, they were originally classified as trucks and could have excessively polluting cheap powertrains.)
ULSD + advances in technology is allowing diesel passenger vehicles to return to the U.S. starting in the next year or so. I think VW targeted the 2009 model year (so available now very likely), and Subaru is targeting MY 2010 for a 2.0 turbodiesel in the U.S.
Sounds like the HTC TyTn II aka AT&T Tilt.
Or the HTC Touch Pro (not yet released for AT&T but coming in a month or so most likely)
The only thing from your list missing is a decent camera, but that's something you're just plain never going to see in a cell phone. There's just no room for a decent sized sensor to get acceptable noise performance.
Sad to say it, but Windows Mobile phones are probably the most widely available "open for developers" phones out there. WM does have app signing, but every WM phone I've seen allows the user to easily override the signing function. It's basically "This app is unsigned, are you sure you want to run it? Yes/No" - The nice thing is that the phone *remembers* this answer until the app's hash changes.
Most current Linux phones are heavily locked down (such as the Motorola MOTOMAGX based phones).
Android based phones don't exist yet, and some of Google's comments imply that they will be allowing carrier lockdown.
I've heard a lot of Symbian phones are also heavily locked down and won't run apps unless they are signed. It's a moot point if you're in the U.S. because Symbian phones are pretty rare here.
I have an AT&T Tilt (HTC Kaiser aka HTC TyTn II) and I love it.
The standard isn't broken. It simply was not designed to accommodate "dumb" chargers, no one thought of them when it was designed.
The USB specification disallows current consumption greater than 100 mA unless the device has requested more from a USB host. As a result, a device can only charge without a PC if one of the following is true:
1) The device violates the USB specification
2) The device requires less than 100 mA
3) The device has some way of knowing that a "dumb" charger is connected and it can draw more than 100 mA without a PC connected. This is not part of the USB 2.0 spec as the USB 2.0 spec was finalized well before USB became popular for charging mobile devices. As a result it's done in nonstandard ways, although there is a de facto standard of grounding the 5th (normally not connected) pin of a Mini-USB plug. Motorola uses this as do quite a few other manufacturers. What other devices' USB charger did you connect it to?
I believe USB 3.0 addresses the "dumb charger" issue, I'm not sure though.
Common to many manufacturers. This is done to avoid violating the USB specification - A device is not permitted to draw more than 100 mA without negotiating with a computer.
There is a de facto standard for signaling the presence of a "dumb" charger to a Mini-USB device (ground a pin that is normally not connected) but this disallows the ability to have a single cable to both sync/charge from PC and charge from a dumb charger. (The grounded pin messes up most device's capability to communicate over USB.)
Which generation? My 5th gen iPod has not crashed once since I bought it... 1.5 to 2 years ago I think?
Well, in some ways many HAVE agreed on a charger standard - and it's USB!
Manufacturers are starting to realize that charging from standard USB ports is less likely to sell "add-ons" like chargers, but FAR more likely to sell the devices themselves due to issues such as this.
Even my new Motorola Talkabout FRS radios have Mini-USB ports for the sole purpose of charging.
Unfortunately manufacturers haven't quite standardized on how to handle "dumb" chargers without violating the USB specification. USB devices are not permitted to draw more than 100 mA without negotiating with a PC for more current. So a manufacturer has three choices:
1) Violate the USB specification (can't put the USB logo on your packaging)
2) Figure out some way to signal the presence of a "dumb" charger to the device, allowing it to draw more than 100 mA (sometimes even more than 500) when connected to such a charger. There's a de facto standard for Mini-USB plugs - There's a pin that is not connected in normal USB operation that "dumb charger" plugs will usually ground. If a device sees that this pin is grounded it will draw as much current as it can. I know these cables can be used with, at the least, Holux GPS receivers, HTC PDAs, and I believe most new Motorola phones and FRS radios. Unfortunately you cannot have a single cable that will both communicate and "dumb charge" from one of those wallwarts that has a USB Type A jack.
3) Limit current to 100 mA (this is unsatisfactory for many devices)
4) Wait for USB 3.0 - Supposedly USB 3.0 has taken this whole issue into consideration.
Since the release of Firefox 3, my previous 2.x installations have at least twice pulled subsequent 2.x upgrades - Why can't I automatically upgrade to Firefox 3? It's not that much harder to manually upgrade, but the automatic 2.x series upgrades process was so simple.
Except the IETF also has no authority - I'm sure Comcasts' actions aren't IETF sanctioned either.
And in this case, the FCC is asserting authority over a government sanctioned (but regulated) monopoly on service through cable television infrastructure, NOT over the Internet itself.
Oh, and I should have also mentioned this:
Much of the throttling is protocol-specific and happens no matter what (peak time or not). Many ISPs explicitly target some protocols (BT being the primary and most common example). So if BT consistently slows to a crawl but downloading XP Service Pack 3 is consistently fast - something is potentially wonky.