[Hrgeeks] Save the Internet: Support Net Neutrality!

[Scott Dorsey]

> > Depends on the exchange.  Long lines digital transmission started coming in
> > in the early 1960s, replacing FDM "Telpak" cables with TDM digital circuits.
> > (That's where the T in T-1 comes from.)  Digital switching was a different
> > thing altogether... in fact you could argue the original Strowger switch was
> > digital.  What you're talking about is "electronically controlled switching"
> > and in general it was a good thing... and the phone company introduced it
> > with no prodding from the government, because it was a profit center for
> > them.
> 
> I ment the audio is digitized and played back using ADC / DACs?

That would have been the early 1960s when the first T-1 circuits started
coming in.  Some of the early digital converter hardware was phenomenally
bizarre too.  Now, they kept the in-band signalling for a long time... I
don't recall when SS7 signalling came out but I remember hearing in-band
signalling tones as late as the mid-eighties on crosstalk.

Mind you, the digital infrastructure took several decades to take over...
there were still FDM circuits in use in the late eighties in GTEland.  And
of course the local loop still hasn't gone digital.

> > Of course.  They are the exact same things that the telcos want to do today.
> > That doesn't change anything.  The pressures on the telcos are exactly the
> > same... and if you think that there is actual competition between wireline
> > telcos, you are very deluded.
> 
> I know that the ILEC is still a heavy monopoly, and that the CLECs are 
> doomed as the ILEC moves to FTTP.

The problem is that infrastructure is expensive.  It costs a huge amount of
money to put cabling into place, and it takes many years to get any of that
money back.  And so getting actual competition in place means having actual
duplicated network hardware.

The FCC makes a big deal about competition for DSL service, but in fact no
matter who your provider is, the ILEC owns everything from your demarc to
the DSL provider's demarc.  That's not going to change without adding a
totally different telco infrastructure.

It is because of this that you will _always_ have at least a near monopoly
on telephone and landline data service.  You can split Ma Bell up into 
pieces but now you get a bunch of pieces that each have local monopolies,
and that's no better than what you started out with.

If you _have_ to have a monopoly, a well-regulated monopoly is better than
a monopoly that is allowed to make all the rules itself.

> > The ECPA does a lot of really silly things, like define a subcarrier as a
> > form of encryption... which means that listening to FM in stereo is
> > technically illegal.  It was a law written without benefit of technical
> > expertese.
> 
> Figures. I knew you were supposed to ask permission before pulling SCA 
> feeds out of FM broadcasts, but didn't know there was a full up law 
> against it. Wonder who wanted it. Do people still use FM SCA? I think my 
> car stereo can use it to get a Microsoft mobile data feed, but it's slated 
> to die soon.

SCA is actually very popular for some low bandwidth data broadcast services.
When your handheld GPS displays traffic, it's actually getting the traffic
data from an SCA feed of a local FM station.  There is at least one FM station
in the area that makes nearly AS much money from renting their SCA out as 
they do selling ads.

But it's not just SCA that is illegal to listen to.  The FM multiplex 
subcarrier that gives you the R-L signal in the stereo pair is also illegal
to listen to, because it's also an "encrupted communication."  The moment
you flip the switch from mono to stereo, you're violating the law.  This is
a bad law.  It was made by people who did not understand what they were
regulating.  That's the fault of Congress and not the FCC, mind you.

> > Whoops, you're right... I know that got moved, but now it has been closed so
> > if you DID actually have an engineer come to investigate an interference
> > issue, he'd be coming down from Landover Maryland.  The chances of that
> > happening are... slim....
> 
> Wow. I got a visit once for operating an unlicensed FM broadcast station 
> and the guy was local. Someone on a newsgroup told me who would come if 
> someone ever did come, and said they operate out of Chesapeake.

It was in Norfolk for many years, in part because they worked with the Navy
a lot in the thirties and forties when radio was shiny and new.  It was in
Norfolk at least until the late nineties, and then they did move down to
somewhere else on that side of the water.  The chief engineer as of around
2000 or so was Dick Husnay who was a good fellow and could be depended on
for help interpreting the regulations.

The FCC does in fact go after pirate broadcasters pretty heavily, because
it's easy to do and it looks good in the press.  On the other hand, that
truckstop on Rt. 295 that keeps broadcasting recorded advertisements on
CB Channel 19 (and the third and fifth harmonics of same), they won't touch
because it's too much trouble and there's no press in it.

> In modern times, it's easy for them to run a sensor network all across the 
> USA looking for problems. Not that they do (that I know of).

The FCC has not really looked for problems for many, many years.  They wait
for complaints.  God knows they get enough complaints that they don't have to
go out looking for anything.  They get so many complaints that they can act on
only a tiny fraction of them, because they don't have the people.

> There are a number of operations that are listening to the radio stations 
> and fingerprinting the advertisements and songs playing on the stations, 
> though. Independent advertisement verification.

Yup.  It's a good idea.  There are a lot of stations that take money for
national ads and then don't run them.  Calling them on it is important,
and it _isn't_ the job of the FCC, it's the job of the advertisers.
They need to know they're getting what they paid for.

> > Yup.  But I can also go to Wal-Mart and see plenty of consumer products that
> > don't even come close to meeting Part 15 specs.  Just pick up any touch lamp
> > and see.  Admittedly there are a lot more products being sold today than
> > ever before, but if laws are not enforced they do no good.
> 
> But modern electronics handle interference better? I can't think of the 
> last time I had intereference issues.

Welcome to the digital age, where systems handle mild interference better
but then totally pack up all of a sudden when the noise level gets to the
point where their error correction doesn't work any more!

Watch your WiFi throughput when the microwave oven is on some time... you
may see a change.  Likewise with 2.4 Ghz cordless phones.... the ISM band
was never really intended for communication at all but that is another rant
for another time.
--scott