"Me" wrote in message
...
In article rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal,
shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that
enters
or tries to leave that property.

Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain
No.3?

In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any
electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be
contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or
Private.

Nice try though......

me

It doesn't help to reference code not properly cited. Then consider how the
U.S. Attorney General (pick your year of political flavor) decides that the
government will interpret specific circumstances of every federal case that
is not well supported by existing case law.

Some broad-reaching statements exist in most federal statutes that cannot be
applied to any individual circumstance, and broad language such as you
paraphrased is not appropriate here either. The Federal government has never
prosecuted anyone for jamming cellphone signals on private property, and
probably never will. The FCC might confiscate equipment that was in the act
of being illegally imported, illegally sold, used maliciously, or used for
profit against individuals or the public. It's a different animal on private
property, which you could learn something about before you rattle off
statutes again. Unless there was a clear case of a property owner's
interference outside the bounds of his property, there is no language in
that monsterous animal of the Communications Act of 1933 that empowers the
government to affect what you do on and "only on" your property with radio
signals. Other laws would apply to something obtained illegally and are not
the topic of discussion here.

Jack