On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:06:41 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 16:03:16 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
(So you have been mistakenly telling us for years, yet, there is no
damper affecting those of us who play on it regularly for free or a few
paltry bucks..)

Illegally. Just as there are people who

trespass on private or otherwise posted land,

and never get caught either.

Physical trespass can carry a *criminal* charge..talking on the freeband
can not.

There are criminal provisions in the
communications act of 1934.

We are speaking of freebanders on the eleven meter band.

Who are radio pirates, operating unauthorized radio transmitters. The
provisions in the communications act of 1934 do not differentiate
which bands unauthorized transmitters can incur criminal penalties.
If the FCC chose to do so, freebanders can be charged criminally. The
fact that they have not chosen to do any more than sporadic citations,
does not diminish the fact that they could if they chose to.



But the point is that nothing will happen if you
are never caught. But the fact that you are not
likely to get caught does not diminish the
illegality


No one ever said it did.

and societal irresponsibility of
engaging in the acts.
*
In order for you to claim such a "societal irresponsibility" exists,
there first must exist a "societal responsibility" somehwere other than
your mind regarding such (cb radio)....can you cite it?

Societal responsibility goes far beyond CB radio. It goes hand in hand
with morality, consideration, and just plain old fashioned good
manners.



The FCC rules do carry criminal as well as
civil penalties should they choose to apply
them, if the case warrants it.


Please cite these criminal penalties referring the freeband or simple
dx.

Please refer to the communications act of 1934 and related parts.



_
I would hedge zero times have you actually confronted a real criminal or
law breaker in the act and in person.

I certainly would if the opportunity presented
itself.


It presents itself daily to you in the form of speeders,,a act that can
cause physical damage or death when violated, which carry real criminal
pealties, unlike dxing or freebanding. When was the last time you
confronted one and how was it done?

If I were to confront one speeder, I'd have to confront all of them,
and I cannot do that. I have, on occasion, prevented speeding by
paralleling someone in the right lane holding the legal speed limit.

Besides, speeding is not a criminal offense, it's a simple summary
offense. What it may or may not lead to is irrelevant, and calls for
speculation.


or on bands where public access is
set aside.

Or not. Don't forget many of the freqs that have been abandoned.

Abandoned does not mean "open".

Right,,,it means not being used.To use your analogy regarding physical
property,,,,if a lot or property is abandoned, and one tends the ground,
takes care of it, and pays the tax on it for x amount of years, the
often land becomes the property of the caretaker who has been taking
care of it and paying the taxes.

Squatters rights. And interesting angle. I wonder if someone has tried
that tactic on the FCC in regard to the freeband area of 11 meters.
The principle is similar.


There are many abandoned buildings around.


But you are still not allowed to trespass there.

Yet, many people use these abandon buildings on a regular basis with
immunity. Bums,,,vagrants, crackheads,

..... Freebanders. I see the similarities.

See above for examples of a form of citizen eminent domain.

Yes, and I'm waiting to see someone attempt to use this reasoning to
obtain the legal authorization of the freeband

_
I'll
reiterate what you already found in google on many
occasion,,,,,education is the key.

Much like a public park.

Nothing like a public park, as breaking the law you speak of (trespass)
can result in criminal charges, unlike talking on the freeband.

Look at FCC regs again. There are certainly
criminal penalties associated with them.


There is,,,but not with simple dx or freebanding.

Again, the regs do not differentiate which bands will carry those
criminal penalties for unauthorized use. Simple dx on the legal 40
channels is a nothing citation. But couple it with running on
unauthorized freqs, and the severity increases. The only thing you
have in your favor is that the FCC is not motivated enough to do much
about it. It's not that it's any less illegal, it's only that they
don't care enough.



Ask your buddy "Bob-noxious" about the
criminal penalties associated with pirate radio.

Another realm.

No, it's not. Not in principle. The only thing that's different is
that Bob's visibility to commercial (paying) interests is what forces
the FCC to pay closer attention.

_
This
concept has proved nearly impossible for you to grasp. Perhaps it
because you so vehemently disagree with the law.

Your whole justification revolves around your
perception that unless a law has serious,
visible teeth, then it doesn't deserve our
respect, and we are justified in ignoring it.


What justification? The fact that you continue to incorrectly claim I
justified anything over the years has dogged you.

Then what would you call it. When you claim that freebanding is a
simple infraction, that's a justification. Would you still freeband if
the FCC actively pursued freebanders and fined them heavily?


That is anti-social behavior.

So is the behavior of sports fanatics and religious zealots, both a very
real part of the fabric that weaves America.

In what way?

But most people understand
tolerance is a necessary gem to a successful America and certain acts
are placed into proper perspective by the majority...a perfect example
is the majority of the populace do not consider speeders "criminals"
like yourself.

I don't either. Speeding is not a criminal offense. I never stated
otherwise. You were the one who compared speeders to "real" criminals
a few lines above, not me.



No,,facts. You can't call facts you disagree with "semantics".

You want to talk about facts? The facts are
that the FCC can and does auction off chunks
of spectrum to commercial entities to use.
They also regulate those chunks. They also
set aside some spectrum for "public use". Yes,
they administer it, as an arm and
representative proxy of the U.S. government.

Who is charged with administering what belongs to the public via their
tax dollars. Not much different than an auction.

Then why is the public not seeing the proceeds of these sales?

So, while the FCC might not directly "own" the
airwaves, the U.S. government does.


Nope. The citizens of the US "own" the airwaves by virtue of their tax
dollars paying for all that is related to it.

I would argue that the sale of that same bandwidth pays for much of
the FCC's budget.


Only when combined with other acts. If you feel simple freebanding (the
context of which we speak) carries criminal charges, feel free to cite
the passage or an example,,even one.

What is "simple" freebanding? Again, I refer you to the com act of
1934 and associated regulations regarding unauthorized transmitters.


Know of any test cases pushing the limit on this law?

Pushing which law and in what way?

Transmitting, albeit, under the guise of part 15, to a much broader
audience than permitted.

Well, look into any "low power" pirate
broadcaster. Some have tried to claim that
their power is legal (even if their antennas are
not).



Once one is pirating, any legal guise under Part 15 vanishes.

You can legally operate a part 15 transmitter on the broadcast band. I
built one such transmitter when I was a kid. But the antenna
restrictions specified no longer than a 5 foot wire.

I could hear my "station" up to about a block away.


How is such defined? If a church camp own 2500 acres and broadcasts over
such, and I sit on the public lake adjourning their property and can
tune in their broadcast..is it now simply approached as a public
broadcast?

Most of those situations employ carrier current
transmitters which radiate only a short
distance from their "antenna" wires, thereby
limiting range beyond the intended service
area. The biggest uses for this technique is on
.college campuses, travel, and road alert
systems.

Yes,,,but my question remains and is still valid.

The reality is that even a carrier current
system needs to be authorized by the FCC.
So a radio system capable of covering a 2500
acre church camp would need FCC
permission to operate.




Sure,,,,,but again,,,if one was to zero in and receive the signal from
property not owned by the entity transmitting under Part 15, what then?
Isn't this a technical violation?

That depends on the circumstances. An authorized carrier current
station operating within the technical requirements is not responsible
for incidental radiation beyond it's physical boundaries.

Cordless phones are part 15 devices, yet they can carry beyond your
property lines.


Instead of arguing with me, try looking into the
rules governing each service, and find out for
yourself. Despite the relative ease by which a
person may operate a CB radio, it is still not a
"right" to do so, it is a privilege granted by the
FCC, as the service is authorized by rule,
even if a license is not required.

And if that law were serious, one would NOT be able to buy, plug and
play. What stops an immigrant from using a cb? Nothing,,they all se them
in the fruit fields.

This is true, the FCC isn't checking the
immigration status of every CB operator,

The immigration use was but one example. There are countless more of how
anyone can use a cb simply by purchasing one off the shelf or from
anotehr party.

Well, that's a big glaring example of how reality can defy or obstruct
the rules. The fact that this happens does not diminish the letter of
the law.

One could say that the presence of a law which is unenforceable is
grounds for its revocation. Maybe that time is now.


and it won't come up unless the person is
cited for other rule violations. It's sort of like
the seatbelt law in many states. You can't get
stopped for it alone, but if you are stopped for
another violation, they can cite you for failing
to wear a seatbelt at the same time.



Yea,,well they just changed the law here,,they can pull one over for not
wearing it,,it's no longer a secondary offense (in Fl) , but a primary
offense.

I believe that's true in Pa, as well now. But it's still secondary in
other states.


Again, it seems that you justify ignoring rules
based on the unlikelihood of being cited.


When I began selectively ignoring specific rules for a specific purpose
(which happens to be THE definition of civil disobedience), most weren't
even aware such rules existed, which nullifies any possible position
presented by yourself regarding ignoring rules on the unlikelihood of
not being cited. In fact, when cbers were sliding up one or in between
to "channel 22a", most had no clue it was illegal.

I have a hard time believing that these bright, intelligent CB
operators would be so ignorant as to the legality of what they were
doing. In any case, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In those days,
as a condition of your CB license (You did have a license right?), it
was required that you read and understand the part 95 rule book. You
couldn't plead ignorance, without opening yourself to the charge of
making a false statement on your license registration form.

No one in my area ever believed that sliding through channels outside
of the 23 standard channels was in any way legal. We took our chances
based on the unlikelihood of getting popped. Had there been more
busts, most of us would have been too scared to venture out of band.
In fact there were regular rumors that the FCC was "in town" and many
of us toned down our antics, hid the amps in the garage, and stayed on
the legal channels, at least until the "alert" passed.

The point being that we all knew exactly what we were doing then.


As a
condition of that privilege comes your
responsibility to abide by the rules set fort in
various FCC parts depending on which
service you are using.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Actually, I love the manner in which the FCC enforces radio law right
now and have said so on many occasion.

Sure. The FCC is not as effective as they
should be,

The country disagrees with you, simply by virtue of what the FCC
enforces.

No, the FCC disagrees with me. The last time I looked, the rank and
file citizen has no input on what the FCC considers a priority.



and freeload.... er, freebanders get away with

trespassing on other government administered
frequencies with little chance of getting

caught.


Because it's ractically a non-issue with the majority of Americans.

The majority of Americans forgot about CB radio when Burt Reynold's
hair turned gray, and computers and cell phones satiated their gadget
fix.



But you guys who are operating illegally are
using all sort of excuses to justify or downplay
this illegality.


Then you should have no problem illustrating substance concerning your
accusations, but you have failed to do so to date regarding any of these
"guys" you incorrectly invoke.

What substance do you want? Do you deny that people other than you
operate illegally, and don't care about it?


Those who present a direct safety issue.

Very few people fall into this category.

All hammies who jam repeaters and talk where they are not permitted (on
the hammie band) fall into this category.

How does jamming a repeater create a safety issue? how do illegal
freebanding hams create a safety issue over than of illegal CB
freebanders (As if there really is a difference?)

They have plenty of teeth. Their bite is interested in chomping away
with censorship of television.

It's much easier for them to enforce.

Actually, the hammies are much easier to enforce.

Not really. they still have to physically identify the illegal
operator. That means moving beyond the confines of their cushy
offices.


"Tracking down" in the manner you believe is a thing of the past. The
High Frequency Directional Finder in Laurel, Maryland pinpoints
transmissions anywhere in the country immediately with no effort. Ask
Scott about it.

If true, then your buddy "Bob" should be dropping loads in his pants
right now.

You cannot pinpoint transmissions from a single point. It requires at
least 3 points to do with any accuracy. Why do you think there are so
many GPS satellites in position in order to find a precise bearing?

There was a rumor a few years back, and in fact I knew a guy who once
claimed to work on this system, where the GPS satellites could be made
to work "in reverse" and pinpoint any radio transmission emanating
from earth with the same accuracy as a GPS. But I cannot verify this.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
j