I think things like we did with wheeler angry letters, talking to representatives, etc. are going to have to be done constantly if/when wheeler is ousted. We'll have to make a hailstorm of noise in order to keep our internets, and as far as i'm concerned we'll have to continue to make noise and the like for years to come, when it comes to FCC dealings.
2 Likes
Indeed.
We need an absolute riot, so we can get them to break up the major ISP's for anti-competitive violations and anti-trust shit.
Not to mention fraud, by taking tax-payer money to pay for their infrastructure upgrades, which they then didn't upgrade (not nearly as much as they should have)
Exactly this. Active citizens matter.
the FCC isn't just a useless shill organization like the RIAA it actally dose important stuff like making sure planes don't crash becase some idiot wants to host his radio show on the same frequency band.
2 Likes
yeah ideally but, with way more bureaucracy and red tape than is required, instead of being dont use these bands used by planes, fire/ems/police etc, they just go dont use anything at all except for couple specific allotments and power levels, all the censoring stuff etc.
example "Hobbyists, inventors and other parties that design and build Part 15 transmitters withno intention of ever marketing them may construct and operate up to five such transmitters for their own personal use" whats so egregious about having 6 or more devices, whats it matter if theres 100 if your withing their other strict guidelines regarding power and interference
source-https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
FCC is not the FAA and the RIAA is not the ARLL (arrl.org)
The VOR system is at risk of being decommissioned by the FAA due to the popularity of new technology such as GPS, WAAS and ADS-B. For the time being, pilots will continue to use VORs as a primary navigational aid, but in the distant future, as more and more aircraft are equipped with GPS receivers, VORs will most likely be retired from use.
@dinscurge you might check out freebanding. Freebanding is popular cause the FCC flat out does not give a rip about radio. While freebanding does not cause things like 9-11 and the challenger disaster it has caused problems with radio controlled airplanes (just above the cb bands) and some have complained cause someone heard cussing over the baby monitor (50odd khz or so, forget where).
Freebanding is criminal activivty. It is to amature radio what graffiti is to art. The FCC is soo busy trying to either put a sticker on everything to taking over debate and discourse on the net it won't do what it was created to do. Keeping the airwaves from devolving into what happens on 27.185 khz.
There is also something called a "keydown".
Basically 2 guys see who has the biggest radio by yelling "aauuudddiiiiooooo" at the same time.
Check out what this mobile 70kw amp does the camcorder when he drops "The hammer!"
I know the FCC heard that!
1 Like
If you voted for anyone while thinking anything you're gravely mistaken
4 Likes
He wants to get terrorists off of the internet, kind of gonna be hard now after what Obama did (see "ICANN" hand over responsibility to the UN, BECAUSE SCREW US RIGHT!).
I don't see our friends in the UN being all that helpful keeping the terrorists out lol (seeing how they support them, but that's a different discussion for another day).
All i can hope for is that we don't have a great firewall like the Chinese have.
@anon85933304 as a radio junky, and "allegedly" a freebander (i'm respectable, and only on for a short period of time, so don't get your jimmies rustled). I do love me some 27.185 khz, also, that 70kw amp is freakin crazy, do you know how much chaos you could cause with a bastard like that! (though i'm sure the splatter is a nightmare)
1 Like
My Ranger 2970 N2 might have gone where it wasn't supposed to go:)
Hey as long as it's not emergency bands that's fine by me!
1 Like
How does this help terrorists getting on internet? How did ICANN responsibility being in USA hands prevent terrorists from getting on internet? Which terrorists?
I was commenting how the UN is full of wusses that couldn't regulate the internet even if they tried... It wasn't a comment about the USA preventing terrorists getting internet. Though we do have a better chance of reducing their connectivity if we had kept ICANN in the US.
1 Like
How? ICANN only regulates/manages protocols and naming conventions on the very high level. What can the ICANN do to prevent per user access? The organization does not really have the authority to say who gets access or not. It just provides the address spaces to the regional authorities/registries.
ICANN at this point manages the Internet globally. It is completely crazy to be kept under the control of a single state.
Also the ICANN is not controlled by the UN. It is controlled by multiple stockholders from businesses, academia and world governments. Basically any interested body on the planet.
I think your underestimating ICANN's reach, though i do agree, in its current state it can do little... though under the UN's control they could easily expand ICANN's control (the UN has a knack for doing such things).
Its a simple case of giving an irresponsible organization more control. ICANN was the first of (possibly) many mistakes, well, maybe the Trumpster can make that possible future impossible.
Think of ICANN as setting a bad precedent for the future.
Honestly, you reduce terrorists' connectivity by putting a bullet in their head. Not by controlling ICANN.
What do you find irresponsible in how ICANN is being handled today?
I would like to see a substantiation to the claim that this is a mistake. Exactly what became worse compared to before?
What would it do?Not give address space or domain names to the whole of Euroasia to stop terrorists? That would be insane. Plus it would not really stop anyone from connecting. The fine grain control you are referring to can only be done on the national level. ICANN does not have the authority to do anything else.
Again it is NOT controlled by the UN. I am not sure where you are getting that. Go to their website and see their government structure. It is a multi-stakeholder model. The nations that are part of this are present directly not through the UN institutions.
You mean the same UN that is the playground of the 5 permanent Security Council Members? One of which is the US, alongside the UK, Russia, France and China? We are talking about the same UN that the US has a permanent presence in every sub section as a permanent security council member and resolution veto powers. The US even has a permanent seat on the International Court and does not even recognize its authority.
Also that.
I feel that you both are jumping around so much i can barely follow, what do you expect from me, a freaking novel?
(That's my way of saying I don't have to time to respond to each question, while doing it justice, you do realize i work right? :)
All I said was while ICANN doesn't have all that much power, it doesn't mean that won't change. I also mention that historically the UN has often abused it's power and has (IN THE PAST MIND YOU) granted power to organizations it controls through it's heavily flawed bureaucratic system. So yeah, giving ICANN to that organization was a bad move if you believe that the UN is a failing and extremely flawed organization.
Do realise, I'm talking about a possible future here due to an easily exploitable system (such as the UN). I honestly doubt they will be able to do much, much like the League of Nations, the UN is showing signs of slowing down... again, another possible reality (though i doubt that the UN will go that way).
I'm about reducing the chance that organizations, systems, corporations, etc fall under a system that is exploitable. It's called future proofing. The UN has more problems than i can even keep track of. If you are serious about the UN (and by the sound of your posts you seem to be) go read a book about it, there are many on the subject that do it better justice than i could ever do. Though if you could, try to go for the most unbiased source possible, or do what i did, read three, one for the UN, one "unbiased", and lastly, one against the UN. I promise you, you won't be disappointed.
Also, @turin231, digging the Groucho Marx pic.
@Blunderbuss, yes, pumping lead into the terrorists' brains (if they have any) would reduce their ability to connect to the internet. :P
TL;DR: I'm not going to waste my time answering all these questions, because that's not fruitful, go read a book, or three on the subject.
Cheers!
i.e. imagining things.
Recommend one, please.
No one expects a novel from you. Only substance and coherence so that we may consider agreeing with you. You made a lot of evaluative statements which read like a (fairly general) political pamphlet, and then failed to argue for those claims when asked to.
You don't really need to argue for them either. ICANN is actually as unrelated to FCC as it is unrelated to terrorism.
Have a nice day!
2 Likes
Tom Wheeler has announced he is stepping down Jan 20, 2017, right after Trump is supposed to take office.
"...Trump is widely expected to replace Wheeler with a man named Jeffrey Eisenach. He's a former commissioner-turned-analyst who has spoken out against net neutrality multiple times over the years. ..."
Yup, net neutrality is pretty much dead. As well as general internet freedom. You did just elect a fascist after all.