Got a Cell Phone Booster? FCC Says You Have To Turn It Off 245
First time accepted submitter Dngrsone writes "Some two million people have bought cell-phone wireless signal boosters and have been using them to get better communication between their phones and distant cell towers. But now, the FCC says they all have to turn their boosters off and ask permission from their providers, and register their devices with those providers, before they can turn them back on."
I'll get right on that (Score:2)
I'm just falling all over myself to listen to an agency that fines people tens of thousands of dollars for saying "fuck" on the radio.
Re:I'll get right on that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'll get right on that (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it succinctly ... Fuck the FCC
Re:I'll get right on that (Score:4)
Err, no - the phrase "dead lay" pops up mentally too much when I think of doing so.
I live out here in the sticks. Damned near half the county uses boosters, because, well, we have to. Between the abundance of mountains and the twisty roads, it's a given that if you want a signal, you get a booster.
Hell, the carriers should be grateful we do, since w/o the boosters, they'd get to hear about how their coverage sucks, and they'd either have to put in more towers ($$$!), or have to do some shrinkage on their cute little coverage maps. (Yes, on the latter they would pretty much have to. Here in Tillamook county, residents aren't afraid to give the sales droid a good loud "bullshit!" when shown a carrier's local coverage map - especially if that carrier is AT&T.)
Re: (Score:3)
Have fun chasing down those oilfield trucks that are 30 miels in the brush illegally using cell phone boosters!
The FCC used to have great fun chasing down 18 wheelers with their CB radio amplifiers. CB radios are supposed to be capped at four watts, but some people used amplifiers that boosted that to hundreds or thousands of watts. And the FCC would get complaints and would track down the offenders, sometimes as they're driving down the road -- after all, 20 kW is pretty easy to follow. And they'd hit people up with substantial penalties.
That said, cell phone boosters only operate at like a watt or so. As long
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how the FCC is allowing vendors to keep selling the devices for another year [basically screwing customers buying these devices]?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any kind of reference for 100 kW boosted mobile CB radios? That is a lot of power. It's hard for me to picture how you could get that much power from even a very large 12v battery and/or the alternator. Even 20 kW seems pretty amazing for a mobile transmitter.
Re:I'll get right on that (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have any kind of reference for 100 kW boosted mobile CB radios? That is a lot of power. It's hard for me to picture how you could get that much power from even a very large 12v battery and/or the alternator. Even 20 kW seems pretty amazing for a mobile transmitter.
I used to do CB radio electronics work back in the day. The biggest mobile amplifier I ever saw was 2KW. That required the addition of another alternator & battery to supply enough current. Most commonly-used solid-state mobile CB amplifiers are/were anywhere from 50W to 500W.
For 10-20KW or more, you'd almost have to have an auxiliary engine, battery, & alternator (and some extremely-heavy wiring) to supply the extremely high current levels needed for those kinds of power levels.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember you couldn't run linear amplifiers on C.B. radios either. But, loads did anyway and nothing ever happened.
I don't know about the world of shortwave, but I bet they have some FCC tales to tell. Anyone?..
Re:I'll get right on that (Score:4, Informative)
Actually... Yes. All you have to do is look at the webpage for the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/ [fcc.gov]
Just the headlines near the bottom of the page show $20K fines for operating without the appropriate license, interfering with licensed users, etc. If you browse around a bit you'll see some fairly recent enforcement of CB operators with illegal setups, primarily amplifiers, but some are also related to out-of-band operation.
I don't think the FCC really has time or resources any more to go randomly look for violations, but they will react when they receive complaints of interference. They also don't usually accept "But I didn't know" as an excuse.
It can be rather interesting reading through the enforcement actions, especially since some contain responses from the accused, and the subsequent FCC responses.
*sigh* (Score:5, Funny)
Booster sticker (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Booster sticker (Score:5, Funny)
How do I turn off my as seen on TV signal boosting sticker?
You use a waterproof felt tip pen to draw a switch in the "off" position onto the sticker.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's waterproof, that means his signal booster will be locked in the "off" position forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you just wrap the TV in tinfoil?
Re: (Score:3)
I used green magic marker around its edge and I swear I'm getting clearer sounding audio.
do I have to erase that, too??
Re:Booster sticker (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody should put a spotlight on those doing that.
HA!!! (Score:4, Funny)
I'll turn my booster off when the FCC forces cellular companies to provide better coverage. Until then, they can both bite me.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the prospect of 2M users calling up to try to register their boosters could result in just such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The more people waiting in line, the more Job Security for the clerk-drone...
Re: (Score:3)
I'll turn my booster off when the FCC forces cellular companies to provide better coverage. Until then, they can both bite me.
I'll GLADLY shut mine down when the ILEC for my area installs a hard line for an affordable price. Their quote of $250K is a bit above my budget. All the years I lived in a metro area I paid a "tax" to support rural service. Now that I'm in a rural area I can't get a hard line - go figure.
makes some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) have to meet & be tested for certain noninterference properties, which is only valid if they're used unmodified. A provider could get a device+addon combination certified, however.
Re:makes some sense (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. There are two parts to the new regulation.
1) New cell boosters must meet stricter standards of non-interference.
That's great. No objection here.
2) Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters, even the new ones that meet the stricter standard. If you have multiple carriers connected devices, you must have the booster approved by each carrier.
That makes no sense at all.
Re:makes some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
It actually does make sense - the carriers hold the licenses for using the spectrum these boosters are boosting, they paid a lot of money to use those spectrum licenses.
Thus, you must get the permission of the license holder before you can use that portion of the spectrum.
Re:makes some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
But the only reason for using one is to make use of the service that I already pay for. If they are going to refuse my efforts to make their system work for me, I should have an automatic penalty free exit oppretunity from any/all contracts.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a rather facetious argument - if you entered into the contract knowing that the service required a booster, the problem is yours. If you entered into the contract not knowing the service required a booster, but the service provider made no false promises regarding coverage in the area, the problem is yours.
If the service provider made false promises, or the service degraded, then the problem is theirs.
I don't see why the contract should be null and void because you screwed up on your due diligence p
Re:makes some sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The introduction of a repeater into a cell system means that the engineering of the cell boundaries can be affected. Now, for boosters that are used in building that shield the RF, there is little engineering that needs to be done -- you are essentially extending the antenna outside the shield. (And you can get repeater antennas without boosters that do the same job, and I suspect they are *not* covered by this regulation.)
When you have an active repeater, that means the cell signals from the provider can be relayed as well as the signals from your cell phone. With microcell design, this can play hob with the clearances, so that a phone will see two cell site courtesy of your repeater.
I'm not an expert on cell systems, but I remember some of the arguments used to keep people from using cell phones from airplanes.
Re: (Score:3)
(And you can get repeater antennas without boosters that do the same job, and I suspect they are *not* covered by this regulation.)
Repeater antennas without boosters do not do the same job. They cause attenuation.
When you have an active repeater, that means the cell signals from the provider can be relayed as well as the signals from your cell phone. With microcell design, this can play hob with the clearances, so that a phone will see two cell site courtesy of your repeater.
That's not even the only issue. There's also the issue of power levels. Your phone has one, the amplifier has another, the phone is matched to its antenna, etc etc.
Re:makes some sense (Score:4, Informative)
The FCC FAQ mentions only that if you are told by a wireless carrier or the FCC that your device is interfering with a mobile network, you must turn it off. It says nothing about doing so preemptively.
Re:makes some sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) ....
Technically all of the spectrum is regulated. There is spectrum set aside for consumer use under various parts of the FCC's Rules, but there are regulations to follow even then. Most consumer devices operate under Part 15 rules, which generally regulates how much RF power you can radiate and stay legal, which boils down to "not much" and if you interfere with a licensed user you have to turn your stuff off.
By the way, there is at least one part of the WiFi spectrum that is actually allocated to Amateur Ra
Re: (Score:3)
It is in the bottom of the 2.4Ghz band. (802.11b and up). Hams can use 100 Watts or more, where consumers are limited to Part 15 levels (about half a watt).
We can actually use up to 1500 watts. Technician licensees like myself are limited to 200 watts on the small chunks we're allowed to touch below 50 MHz and even the Extras are limited to 100 watts on the 60 meter band, but everything else including all of our overlap with ISM bands is full power.
Of course we're only supposed to use the minimum necessary power to establish communications, so outside of contests you really shouldn't be running at that sort of power level. I'd also be concerned for my safety
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A provider could get a device+addon combination certified, however.
Something tells me this will cost users a large monthly fee despite the testing being a one-time cost...
Re: (Score:2)
Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) have to meet & be tested for certain noninterference properties, which is only valid if they're used unmodified.
Then shouldn't they be registered with the FCC, the government body that deals with testing and compliance of noninterference, rather than with a provider that will probably force you to use some kind of new plan that costs extra?
Re:makes some sense (Score:4, Interesting)
A passive device does not need approval. A dish antennal on the roof with an appropiate feedhorn and feedline down to an in home antenna should not be a problem. Only active transmission equipment needs regulated.
I was in hilly countryside and asked a resident about the blank billboard on a hill nearby. They explained it was a passive cell phone repeater to bounce signal into the homes in the valley between hills. It seems to do the job well.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know what "accept" means.
Is it that they have to let their operation get fucked over, or merely that they have to use the airwaves at their own risk not unlike swimming in a river without a lifeguard.
Re:makes some sense (Score:4, Informative)
The second. It's a "deal with it" rule; otherwise line filters, ferrite chokes, shielding and whatnot would make your device non-compliant.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems an odd statement.
I've always wondered what a device that FAILED to accept interference would do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile [wikipedia.org] ??
Re: (Score:2)
. I'll rephrase: a device under these rules is expected to have interference around it, and the owners and manufacturer have no recourse *if* it malfunctions due to said interference (not that it *has* to).
And I sincerely doubt that HARMs are specified under Part 15 rules.
Re:makes some sense (Score:5, Informative)
Ham operator and armchair lawyer here.
Part 15.5 basically says that unlicensed radio operation is a best-effort thing. If the spectrum you want to use is already taken up to a point that it makes it unusable for you, too bad, you have no right to complain. Where allowed, unlicensed operation is the lowest possible priority. A licensed user can shut you down if you interfere with them, but if someone moves in next door to you with an old cordless phone or crappy microwave which knocks out your WiFi when in use you just have to deal with it.
In general the FCC's priority goes like this:
1. Military
2. Licensed Government
3. Licensed Commercial
4. Licensed Amateur
0. Unlicensed
The military pretty much gets what they want, then below that if there's a conflict between licensed parties where both have privileges on a band it tends to go in the order listed. Unlicensed users are then left to fight amongst themselves over the scraps.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is great unless you're playing an FPS:
http://xkcd.com/654/ [xkcd.com]
NTIA (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the military and licensed government spectrum is controlled by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration [doc.gov]. It informs the FCC what frequencies will be used by federal users. The FCC only regulates use of the spectrum by non-federal users.
Both must coordinate with each other, of course, and international bodies like the International Telecommunications Union [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the FCC's Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, Part 15, and "accept" means here that it's up to the manufacturer to "deal with it", exactly because you're operating in an unregulated band. Otherwise line filters, shielded enclosures etc. would be illegal !
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's not what accept means at all. Accept means that the USER of a device gets no legal protection from interference. If your unregulated device is interfered with, too bad, you have no recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that only applies to devices in unlicensed spectrum. You could also be interfering with other licensed useds (ie other carriers), which is not allowed.
What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch! (Score:5, Funny)
This amazing cell phone booster works on all brands. It looks like a sticker with weird tattoo image like log printed on it. All I have to do is to open the battery cover and stick it to the inside of that cover. That is all. I am guaranteed to get four bars on the antenna no matter where I go. I itching to get my hands on this thing, I would like to rub it in the face of my friends who are paying big bucks for brand name companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-mobile. My cell phone provider just charges me 10$ and his coverage map does not include my home. But, they don't know about this amazing cell phone booster. It is going to be sweet baby!, so I thought.
Suddenly this big government is thrusting its nose where it is none of its business and is banning the cell phone booster. What am I going to do?
Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch! (Score:5, Funny)
DO NOT eat the booster. The signal is too clear. So clear. Too clear. I lost mine in a bag of chips and I didn't realise I had swallowed it until I started communing with other people's body thetans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Um, the FCC wants you to pay for overpriced cell service from their OWNERS, the Big Telcos."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. Wake up Americans. "Free market economics" is a dream that we lack. Oligopolies operating in natural monopolies is just a terrible rape fantasy for investors. Either make it a well regulated monopoly or break the fuckers up and limit the size of any telco to something tiny. THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT A FREE MARKET!
You think it is? Your a moron.
You think state owned monopolies will lead to worse service and higher prices? Prove it with examples from this century.
Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch! (Score:5, Funny)
Your a moron.
Thank you for this, it's easily the funniest thing I'll read this week.
Oh, yes of course... (Score:3)
Uh... which carrier? (Score:2)
A client of mine has a metal building that is basically a Faraday cage. You had to go outside, or next to one-of-two windows. So they installed a cell signal repeater for the employees.
So just who do they register with? Any? All?
FYI - There is no associated carrier with the company. They let the employees expense a portion of their cell bills.
Re:Uh... which carrier? (Score:4, Informative)
You could always install a passive repeater - two antennas and a wire connecting them. They're not illegal, and they pass signal out of faraday cages effectively. Make the outside antenna a directional one and point it in the general direction of your nearest tower, and you shouldn't have any issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but it'd be wise to have it engineered before buying any components. Whether you do it on your own or hire a consultant RF engineer is of course up to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Lath and plaster has the same problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Lath and plaster has the same problem.
Then wrap it in aluminum siding, just to be sure.
Completely agree with this... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and I'll give you a perfect example of what they're trying to fight. I work in a stadium, in an area covered by 15-20 different "cell towers" (real towers, DAS, COWs, etc). The TV production crew works in one or more 53' aluminum expando trailers. Depending on how they're grounded, a lot of them make pretty impressive Faraday Cages - meaning cell phone and radio services are terrible inside them. Some of the TV truck engineers have installed active cell repeaters to help combat this, but of course forget if they have them turned on or not.
A TV truck came to town during an NFL game, they happened to be a truck whose engineers I'm close friends with and I happen to be aware that they run a repeater. During the game I hear reports of cell network issues. I'm walking through a service area only to find a guy with a spectrum analyzer waiving a directional antenna around the halls. I ask him what he's doing, and he says that six cell towers have been completely shut down due to some interference and it's making cell phone communication nearly impossible. (There is a baseball park next door. This can easily lead to tragedy when you have 100,000+ cell phones on the same street corner and no way to call out due to interference and capacity bottlenecks.)
I asked the engineer if he knew when the interference started, he said about 8am Saturday. He said it went away for a while, but then started up again at about 6am on game day. This is the exact schedule the TV trucks were powered up. I tell him to hang on, go to the truck engineers, and ask them if their repeater is on. I tell them to pull it, walk back in to the engineer, and ask how the towers are doing. He says everything seems to be fine now, and asks me what the issue was. I tell him it's taken care of, and walk away.
One cell repeater, left on accidentally in a densely populated area, effectively shut down communications at two major sporting events. They seem like a great idea, but they amplify so much noise at such a high power that they blow regular cell users who can't reach the repeater out of the water. I've seen it happen, and I'm glad the FCC is doing something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, the same shit about grounded vs. ungrounded Faraday cages. Man, it makes absolutely, positively no difference at the frequencies involved. None whatsoever. Any grounding you would have is a big fucking inductor that is more of an open circuit at the frequencies involved, never mind probably a half-decent antenna as well. I have checked it for myself with WiFi, and it makes absolutely no measurable difference at all whether the Faraday cage is grounded or not. No matter how I'd measure things.
The Right Now triumphing over the Right. (Score:2)
Thank you for an excellent example of the "Right" answer being forsaken for the "Right now" answer. (Or, if you prefer, the Cheap over the Elegant.)
Specifically, that the TV truck engineers chose an off-the-shelf answer (cell boosters) that required zero effort and knowledge, rather than, say, wiring external cell antennas on the trailer, and running connections inside.
Because, after all, you stop looking once you have an answer...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we accidentally blinded a Verizon tower, we used a certified installer but something was wrong with the amp used and we had effectively shouted over all other users on a sector of the tower, basically shutting off Verizon service for one of the biggest business areas in our region. Verizon recommended a different installer who fixed the system and we scheduled a test with them on a Saturday to make sure we weren't going to cause any further interference issues.
How are they going to enforce this? (Score:2)
Can the carriers see that someone is running a booster?
I know a few businesses' that run boosters inside (from hospitals to churches to office building) so cell works in the basement or in rest of building for the major 4 carriers (or 2 att/ver in some cases). So do they have to get permission from all 4 even if the company itself doesn't have a contract with any of the 4, it's for their employee's/visitors? And really how can they tell?
Truly curious about the tell part.
Re:How are they going to enforce this? (Score:4, Informative)
Easily. A directional antenna and a spectrum analyzer. They do it. http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3482363&cid=42967297 [slashdot.org]
They just don't care if you're not interfering with their regular service operations.
Can you say (Score:2)
Snowball's chance in hell?
Could this article be more misleading? (Score:5, Informative)
In order to use a Consumer Signal Booster, a consumer must:
Have some form of consent from his/her wireless provider to operate the Consumer
Signal Booster. We note that Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and the RTG
member companies have made voluntary commitments to consent to all Consumer Signal
Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.42 Therefore, we expect that
subscribers of these companies will not need to specifically seek consent from these
providers, or other providers who make similar “blanket” consent commitments, for
Consumer Signal Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.
So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.
Maybe the boys over at ARS didn't bother to read anything other than the limited FAQ, either? Or more likely they did like any "news" organization and selectively picked out the pieces that would get them the most hits on their website regardless of how they were bending the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone mod this to +5 informative. It makes most other rambling above completely pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The concern is less about consumer boosters than comercial boosters which can have a much higher power output.
Re:Could this article be more misleading? (Score:5, Informative)
So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.
Citation needed.
Are you trolling? I did post the citation. Here it is again: https://www.fcc.gov/document/use-and-design-signal-boosters-report-and-order [fcc.gov]
Can't get coverage without booster? (Score:3)
Booster Trouble... (Score:5, Informative)
So about five years ago everyone in the office was complaining about how they had "No Service" on their cell phones... so I went ahead and installed a "booster"-- an outdoor antenna with amp connected to an indoor antenna.
A few months later, some gentlemen from "AT&T Security" showed up at my office and told me they had been trying to diagnose problems with their nearby tower for several months... until they spotted the outdoor antenna on my building, and aimed some sort of gadget at it and discovered it to be a booster. They said the problem was that their antenna system was seeing the increased signal strength of my booster antenna as if their system was receiving strong signals from cell phones in the neighborhood, and their system was automatically lowering its output signal strength, causing users in the area to have dropped calls and poor connections...
They told me that legally they, as a carrier, had priority on the cell spectrum and I had no choice but to turn off or be fined. So if someone's booster is interfering with public cell use, they WILL hunt you down and pry it from your cold, dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
They said the problem was that their antenna system was seeing the increased signal strength of my booster antenna as if their system was receiving strong signals from cell phones in the neighborhood, and their system was automatically lowering its output signal strength, causing users in the area to have dropped calls and poor connections...
Actually, cell phones are supposed to modulate their output to suit the distance and attenuation between themselves and the base station. The fact that your booster revealed itself with a higher signal strength indicates that it does not properly implement that function.
There may be 'boosters' or repeaters that are tested and approved by the carrier. Ask and they may provide you with a list.
Re: (Score:3)
Your booster is technically transmitting illegally on a licensed band and it was discovered to be interfering with a licensed user.
AT&T did a very friendly thing by asking you to turn it off. They could've gotten the FCC involved at which point not only wi
Back up plan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Sprint users are supposed to go back to smoke signals and semaphore flags?
Since Sprint has already issued blanket consent for boosters, Sprint users are supposed to keep using their boosters.
Reply to FCC (Score:2)
I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram. Revised to include all seven words [wikipedia.org] currently proscribed.
If a regulation falls in the forest... (Score:2)
If a regulation falls in the forest, will anybody put down their "legal" pot long enough to comply with it? Will their buddy driving 10 mph over the speed limit get there in time? He's coming over to install a light fixture; but he was betting on sports in a bar. Did he file the proper permits with the county to install that fixture? Inquiring minds don't even really need to ask. We already know.
Or... (Score:2)
Or you can just ignore them and keep on doing what you're doing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This. The cell phone providers are selling devices and subscriptions to fempto-cells and these boosters cut into that market and compete with their services. This isn't about the airwaves.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T never has them in stock, hmm I wonder why? Oh because they have a crap network, crap support, and spend all their retained earnings branding their god damn phones instead of doing their fucking job.
Re:When government is involved-everything is polit (Score:5, Insightful)
When government is involved, everything is political. From the control of the airwaves to scientific research.
Freedom means being free and switching the channel if you don't like the F-work.
Consumerism and the way mass-media is done* has bred a dominant culture of intellectual and emotional babies. They're stuck at an infantile mentality and the surest sign of it is the unwillingness to take personal responsibility. A form of this personal failing is like this: "it's not good enough that *I* don't engage in an activity I disagree with - no one else should do it either!" This pathological inability to be satisfied with anything less than such options not being present at all is a complete rejection of even the slightest self-determinism. It's like these people don't even trust themselves not to watch, read, listen to, or engage in something they find distasteful.
They demand some authority to do this selection for them, and of course authorities are only too happy to find another growth area for their power. They look for it the same way businesses look to expand into new markets. Power instead of money is just a different form of currency. Usually "for the children" provides a good excuse, which again goes back to personal responsibility; it is a rejection of the idea that parents should actually be parents and be involved in what their children are exposed to. Soon enough the whole concept will be deemed absurd and wishful thinking, despite the generations before who did exactly that.
It's scary to consider that we are rapidly becoming a culture that conceives of freedom as being too bothersome. After all, real freedom means that other people might do things you wouldn't do yourself. Allowing consenting adults (and only those) to do such things would mean, most of all, believing in the power of your own counter-example if you really find some thing (drugs, curse words, whatever) so offensive. It would also mean having the emotional maturity to let go of the need to control other people, to be content living your own life as you see fit and giving others the tolerance and space to do the same.
This is what we're losing. It's no bargain because I have yet to see what we're gaining.
* Mass media doesn't inherently influence people to be shallow and stupid. It's one of those "corporations make more money that way" sort of deals. Governments also find it more convenient to rule over a population that won't question anything too deeply. Then the candidate who wins is usually the one with the most money to spend on advertising.
Re:When government is involved-everything is polit (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed! We're losing access to the common airwaves! I demand a return to a libertarian paradise where anyone can overconsume a shared resource until the resource is so depleted that nobody can have access to it.
Dear libertarian, one day you may learn what Winston Churchill meant by "Democracy is the worst of all possible forms of government, except for all the other forms that have ever been tried." Unfortunately that day is not today.
Re: (Score:2)
Small point of order: If a resource becomes overconsumed (as you put it), then the price for accessing (and using) it rises to the point where it is no longer consumed as heavily.
The only exception to this rule involves intervention by government via actions such as price controls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When government is involved-everything is polit (Score:4, Insightful)
To put that more straightforwardly: libertarians assume that there is a natural economic process to internalize all external costs when there is not. That is the underlying flaw of neo-liberalism.
Re:When government is involved-everything is polit (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but while I do understand that there is diversity within every political position:
This is absolute nonsense. Everyone except those of a particularly religious bent believes their political beliefs are totally rational, and a huge percentage of people don't grasp basic logic enough to demonstrate that. Every outlook is fundamentally built on predicates. For example the de-facto core predicate of libertarianism goes something like this "Liberty is the highest good." Most, or at least many, Americans agree with this tenant, but when it's twisted to be "Liberty from government interference is the only good" it becomes a dangerous short-circuit on the role of society in achieving humanistic goals. I have objections with most libertarian thought in that it implicitly endorses many kinds of harm one private citizen can visit upon another, with no mechanism for limiting that harm.
I cannot, of course, explicitly say everyone who shares identification with that world view is engaged in the same kind of mistakes, but I can identify commonly considered core principles to be poorly reasoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"its a humanity problem. And it's a conflict that will last until the end of time"
It will only last until the end of humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So best wishes to all those saying "over my dead body" and I hope that any interference YOU cause by use of an unlicensed device doesn't kill anyone (preventing Emergency communications, reseting a pacemaker to it's test settings, etc).
Is there any evidence that these killing events are actually happening? Surely the FCC would have cited these are reasons people should turn off their signal boosters and register with their cell providers?
Re: (Score:3)
I have a thousand watt linear and use it on my cell. Back in analog phone days my neighbors could hear my calls on their TVs and landlines.
Re: (Score:2)