

Rewriting Rules on Delivery of the Internet 185
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."
thank you google (Score:5, Informative)
And don't forget Marc Majcher's nytview page [majcher.com]. 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!"
Re:thank you google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:thank you google (Score:3, Informative)
For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [slashdot.org] 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.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
Have we just completely forgotten the problem of BPL totally killing HAM radio?
Just [slashdot.org] some [arrl.org] background [arrl.org] information [arrl.org] for you to read [elecdesign.com].
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Users of the affected spectrum cannot be relocated, or at least not economically or in a timely manner, so this is not an option either. It would be cheaper for the government to subsidize cable and DSL deployment. Plus, all of the services that use HF bands require the characteristics that only HF bands exhibit. There would also be huge international treaty implications with any relocation. Changes in international communications treaties are measured in decades, not months or even years. Relocating government and military services alone would take years as the FCC would have to structure a migration plan. Chances are it would be ten years before this could be completed and it's likely that power companies will have run fiber to the home or DSL and cable will finally be ubiquitous. Perhaps the largest issue to tackle, though, is where to move these services in what is an already overcrowded spectrum.
If it was determined that relocation was the way to go, this would be very irresponsible as HF radio bands are a unique natural resource. No other radio spectrum can provide worldwide communications without any supporting infrastructure (i.e. satellites).
The FCC has indeed "followed the money" with this NPRM, that's for sure. They ignored computer models, field measurements, and around 5000 comments filed against BPL, and took the claims of one BPL equipment vendor, hook, line and sinker.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Given lots and lots of powerline comms in the US and elsewhere, the rms sum of (in this case inadvertently) radiated interference is likely to be much greater than a few thousand CB sets all transmitting at once. The point is that HF communications will be disrupted worldwide (not all the world all the time, but some of the world some of the time) by attempts at abusing power lines in this way. Those who are behind these schemes are either ignorant (probably true if they are managers, or software engineers), or are wilfully ignoring the ionosphere.
Attempts have been made to use this technology in the UK, amateur radio and other things were wiped out locally, and doubtless at some great distance according to the prevailing conditions. I suspect that they measured interference up to some distance (a few miles?) from the source, and forgot all about the ionosphere. These tests also violated UK law about the amount of noise allowed on power lines (the signals are noise to legitimate spectrum users).
This must be stopped, or a large part of the electromagnetic spectrum will be gone for ever. It is in any case a very inefficient way to provide data communications. any progressive regime would be insisting on running fibre optics to every home or office. In the UK, BT (who had money at the time, and were ready and willing to run a fibre into every home) wanted to do just that some years ago, but the vile Mrs. Thatcher, allegedly a scientist, blocked it because it would give BT a monopoly. True, it would have, for a while, except that it could easily have been handled the same way as BT's copper wires now, via FRIACO, where other providers can get access. Of course the vile old hag had insufficient imagination to forsee that possibility, and in any case where networks and other large physical things are concerned, a monopoly, at least in any locality, is necessarily much more efficient. We could have had fibre 20 years ago (BT led the way in low-loss fibre) but for a singularly incompetent and particularly vile old bag. (Technology moves on, but a fibre good for 100MHz or more would not need replacing for a long time, even if the bits on each end were upgraded from time to time.) The same nasty piece of work also legislated to prevent mast sharing by the mobile networks (anti-competitive....) although our BBC and independent TV networks, in fierce competition, had efficiently shared transmitter sites for decades.
20 years later, I am still waiting, and have been for 3 years now, for NTL to make my cable TV bi-directional. They have done half the job, providing a digital set top (actually set bottom in most cases) box, with a network socket on the back, and increasing the rental, but they have not done the street cabinet or its links to the outside world yet. That evil old piece of malice has set the UK back about 20 years, almost as much damage as Bill Gates has done.
The moral of all this is that politicians who profess to have been scientists or other similar professionals were in fact failures in their earlier carreer, understand less than nothing about technology, and are utterly unfit to make any decision about anything of real importance. I fear this issue will be decided by some similarly incompetent piece of nastiness (although in the US the Unelected Warmongering Retard is likely to be demonstrably unelected this time), and teh damage will be done.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
BPL interference isn't reallocation of spectrum, it's just interference. It'd be one thing if they were saying "hams move to bands this, that, and TheOther", but they're not. They're just letting BPL walk all over the ham bands. Also, does the public benefit more from Yet Another Broadband Provider than it does from a free, volunteer-run communications system that has proven itself invaluable in emergencies year after year? I think not. This topic has been covered ad infinitum here on /. already.
And, realistically, let's follow the money: there's no money to be made from HAM radio; there's a lot to be made from broadband over powerline.
It's not the FCC's job to maximize corporate profits. If BPL were the ONLY way to get broadband to far flung areas, there might be an argument there but being that there's fiber, wireless, satellite, etc., there's no raitonal justification for steamrolling huge swathes of EM spectrum just so power companies can get in on the ISP game.
HAM stands in the way of progress (Score:2)
Yep, with broadband prices and slow adoption this is a great avenue that will re-start competition, especially when local monopoly telecoms decide not to roll out DSL because they didn't get the proper back-room deal. Here in Illinois, many of the wealthier suburbs (and other locales) are only now getting DSL because SBC wanted both local and long distance rights. Well, SBC got it recently (or is on the
Ham radio IS progress! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2)
Yes and no, but I'll start by explaining my prejudices.
I'm in an area with no DSL, no cable modems, no EV-DO, no OFDM, and no ISDN, and no 802.11 provider can hit my house. In other words I'm screwed for broadband, but broadband over powerlines would probably work for me. I'm not a HAM. A few of my friends are HAMs, but not many. From a hobby point of view my use of broadban
Not just Ham radio... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Be sure to tell him you don't need his help. Get cozy on the roof during that flood, cause you might just be there a while.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the question is will those hams give it up since they can't use it when we have power?
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
And who will they talk to? The whole point of disaster communications is to talk to the outside world... you know, the ones who still have power?
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't mean to troll, but isn't this argument a contradiction? If every other system is down, then you'd get no interference and HAM radio would work fine. If broadband over powerlines was running (and causing interference), then you could call for help using that connection.
Seems to me the only way this scenario can happen is when people are trapped somewhere without c
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
All very well and good, but if ham radio is interfered out, at all times excepting those times when the power is down, ham radio is dead for all intents and purposes.
Ok, so we've now got a dead technology.
Exactly how many people do you expect to shell out the money and the effort to learn this dead technology when it's not working correctly 363 and a half days a year? My guess is nobody. Ergo, when the chutney eventually hits the fan large, there will be no hams around to bail our sorry asses out of the jam we're in.
The blame for that unfortunate situation will lie squarely at the feet of the instrumentality that rendered ham radio operators an extinct species: Broadband over powerlines.
When the disaster hits, and the air is crystal clear, there's not going to be anybody talking. Me no like.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, sounds nice in theory.
And what disaster, of a scale requiring us to go back to antiquated ham radio for communication, would also fail to knock out power, thus removing the source of potential interference?
Some people in previous
"Gee, Steve, LA just dissapeared from the power grid, all major broadcasting from the area has stopped, and NOAA visible shows no sources of light... Do you think we should check it out?"
"Nah... No hams, those true gods among men, have radioed for help. The entire city probably just decided to go to bed early, all at once."
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: How can people be so stupid? (Score:2)
Jesus H. Christ!
How stupid can people be around here?
As has been mentioned elsewhere, there won't be any ham radio operators, because nobody is going to go through the time and expense if the only time they can use it is during a disaster.
No ham radio operators ==> no ham radio.
Why is that so difficult for you morons to u
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2)
But that falls into the "no power, no interference" category. Did they manage to bring up broadband cable before even returning phone service? Somehow, I suspect not. The same would apply to broadband over power lines... In an emergency, you'll have a phone back long before you have any source of broadband connections restored.
Perhaps it would help if you gave me an example where radioing from
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:3, Informative)
An operational grid even on the other coast would prevent radio communications. Makes me wonder how that will work with the treaties we have with ot
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2, Informative)
September 11, 2001 - Remember that? What the hell do you think that not only myself, but almost every other ham I know in the area where doing? Providing Emergency Communication Services to NYC. Try actually researching something before speaking out of your ass.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2)
Well, considering that only about half of the local cell phone providers went down (and even if no normal lines of communication existed, you couldn't have done anything about the bodies lying in two giant heaps of rubble)... I'd say you did the same thing the rest of us did - Rubbernecked by way of the news. You just used your preferred medium of ham radio, rath
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)
Rubbernecking is not the same thing as reporting and serving. The emergency service portion of amateur radio had its largest scale emergency response that day, and performed admirably.
Other instances where ham radio has provided very important service:
Every major hurricaine [hwn.org];
The Colorado/West Coast wildfires [iwce-mrt.com];
The Columbia accident response [arrl.org].
If it wasn't an essential service, we wouldn't be part of the emergency planning on the local, state, and federal levels. Officials are going so far as to encourage more people to get licensed: Read here [marshallnews.com].
Jim kc0lpv
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)
RACES and ARES groups.
Who supports the Salvation Army with communications for shelters and medical assistance?
SATERN and ARES.
Amateur radio is not some antiquated spark-gap device. Providing live, on-scene video feeds of disaster areas; establishing ad-hoc RF computer networks over tens to hundreds (to thousands, if need be) miles to transfer data and images; communicating damage reports to take load off of the public service frequencies; providing primary site-to-site links between emergency operations centers and site command posts (often with agencies that do not use compatible communications equipment)...
The list goes on indefinitely. If you think amateur radio is something antiquated...you are way, way behind the times.
Jim kc0lpv
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the traffic carried on Amateur Radio after a disaster is simple "I'm OK" messages to families outside of the area. While these messages may seem insignificant to you, they mean a lot to the people receiving them. Ham Radio may not save the world, but it still serves a purpose and always will.
Cellular networks fall on their ass these days during a disaster as they depend heavily on telco landline facilties. People have gotten a false sense of security. Network reliablity and survivablity has gone out the window with cellular networks, in favor of shiny phones and stupid features.
And by the way, FEMA uses HF frequencies as well. They could potentially experience interference just like Amateur Radio. Do some research.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2)
When things don't go like they're supposed to, HAMs tend to be very reaourceful and useful, even necessary.
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:2)
Eh? I thought it was fairly well established that all of the BPL schemes create massive radio interference in the HF bands (used for long-haul radio links, esp. emergency comms).
Re:For those who RTFA and still don't get it... (Score:3, Informative)
Depends what you mean by "commercial roll-out". It's commercially available [powerline-plc.com] in my area, though it's still a pilot program.
Broadband over Electrical Wires (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Broadband over Electrical Wires (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Broadband over Electrical Wires (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Broadband over Electrical Wires (Score:1)
Uh... (Score:2)
Not true by half.
Fuck off! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fuck off! (Score:2)
mmm.... janet jackson boobie.
Powerline broadband? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the FCC is writing rules for its use, that must mean that it is viable - why write rules for a dead technology?
Re:Powerline broadband? (Score:1)
Re:Powerline broadband? (Score:2)
Other sources (Score:2, Informative)
Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bitrate and bandwidth have unfortunately become interchangable terms in common culture, even though us geeks know that there's a subtile difference.
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:2)
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:2)
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:3, Informative)
16 BAUD of 8 level FSK would be 48 bits/second. (16 symbols per second, 3 bits per symbol).
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Both cable and phone companies offer broad band signals, signals that operate over a broad range of frequencies.
And according t
Re:Broadband does NOT mean high speed!!! (Score:2)
Yeah, and "baud" doesn't mean "bps". Nor does "motor" mean "internal combustion engine". Furthermore, "screw" and "bolt" are not synonymous. Whaddya gonna do? The common man's vernacular must be accepted sometimes.
wtf (Score:5, Funny)
Did you ever call a ship "docked"? (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:Did you ever call a ship "docked"? (Score:2)
"provider" and "consumer" ? (Score:2)
The FCC? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The FCC? (Score:2)
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing ol' Darl banned from the internet for life.
Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:1)
I guess it depends on the vendor and/or technology solution you decide on (as an ISP). But aside from the inherient problems with 900MHz wireless broadband, I don't see how a 2.4GHz antenna on a house, talking to an AU on the ISP's tower location, can be accessed by someone that isn't authenticated on the ISP's network.
Maybe it's good that I don't know.
(waits for the inevitable semi-technical disinformation er, um, example)
Re:Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I hope you didn't have to wait too long...
1. The 2.4 GHz band is crowded and going to get more so. What happens when half your neighbors have cordless phones in the 2.4 GHz band? Or worse, half of them have their OWN 802.11 b/g home networks, all competing for frequency and bandwidth with both yours and the ISP?
Yeah, I know
Available bandwidth/bitrate on wired connections is many times that of wireless. The only thing wireless has going for it is convenience. Granted, that is a big plus.
As far as security goes...once you authenticate to the ISP's network, usually via SSL/TLS, everything else is then sent in the clear. Most people are still clueless and don't bother with SSL-encrypted mail.
In short, wired connections do provide a bit more security for the clueless masses whereas wireless takes that curtain away. That MIGHT be a good thing, making people PAY ATTENTION to security. However, I'm not going to hold my breath.
-Charles Hill
Re:Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:1)
Don't the ISP's that use wireless 2.4 utilize frequency hopping, instead of simple ranges?
Available bandwidth/bitrate on wired connections is many times that of wireless.
See, I know that to be true, but I can tell no perceptible difference in my wired T1 at the office, and a wireless 1.54/5
Re:Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:1)
True. However, I just moved my home network OFF wireless to gigabit wired, simply because I move a lot of large files around locally and the wireless was killing me. I still have a WAP, mainly for the X-Box with the wireless adaptor and when friends come over with laptops.
My new job has a DS-3 (10 Mbit) at the
Re:Powerlines, isn't this old news (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be applicable on a classic copper twisted pair or fiber, but not so with BPL. The most you get is a raw 80 Mhz (Mb/s) of bandwidth. Once you consider noise issues, modulation, repeaters, usable frequencies, and a bunch of other factors, you're lucky to get 5 Mb/s on a BPL segment. 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz spectrum available to the publ
Broadband over Sewer (Score:5, Funny)
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.
seems like they will hit some problems (Score:1)
Re:seems like they will hit some problems (Score:2, Interesting)
How? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:How? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
It isn't. BPL will
so is this good or bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so is this good or bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:so is this good or bad? (Score:1)
Replace Mike Powell's FCC with US government and you might be onto something.
Re:so is this good or bad? (Score:2)
A question for all the law-people on /. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A question for all the law-people on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Where's the open-source project? (Score:1)
So where is the open source project for this one?
1999 called, they want their PR back. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:1999 called, they want their PR back. (Score:3, Insightful)
Query... (Score:3, Funny)
rewriting rules on the discovery of the internet (Score:3, Funny)
What with it being an election year and all...
Best part was this snippet (Score:2, Interesting)
FCC Workshops (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
thy lamp is thine firewall? (Score:5, Funny)
"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?
FEMA isn't a fan, and neither are HAM operators (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FEMA isn't a fan, and neither are HAM operators (Score:2)
FCC kills BPL (Score:1, Informative)
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat
Implications of this Decision (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
Forget NYT and use CNN (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Radiation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Radiation (Score:2)
POTS (Score:3, Interesting)
Chip H.
Why BPL is needed (Score:4, Funny)
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.
The FCC Once Again Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
folly (Score:2)
Powell is signing off on a huge hash generator. Oh yeah, it's certified not to interfere with lord knows what. Looks like a grid of long wire antennae to me.
Delivered? (Score:2)
The Amateur Radio Relay League sez... (Score:2, Informative)
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 di
Re:Maybe why Whitehouse.com for sale? (Score:2)