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."
Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick (Score:0, Insightful)
That is all.
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, Insightful)
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:I'll get right on that (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it succinctly ... Fuck the FCC
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: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: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.