David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) wrote:

Any scanner user could do it.

No David,,the last time this was brought up, you tried and failed with
this excuse. When it was illustrated what a pervert you are, you come
back with the defense that the incident occurred years and years ago,
when you were a younger man. It appears you can remember vividly the
details of such an incident that many years ago, but can not recal a
simple Phelps antenna when inquired of a comment you made a few year's
previous alluding to such. Nevertheless, back when you were that young,
the scanners were not digital, but crystals, and contrary to your claim
"any scanner user could do it", that simply was not the case back then.
In fact, cordless phones came on the market in 1980 and were ALL 27 MHZ
phones, a specific crystal that did NOT come imbedded in "any scanner".
All of this coupled together with your oft-invoked "statistical
probablility" factor, makes you to be one big freegin' liar! LMAO!

Your lack of age and experience is glaringly

apparent in this statement. First off, the first

programmable scanners came out in the late

70's. Look into the Bearcat 101, the SBE

Optiscan, the Regency "Whamo 10" and the

Tenelec.

My Bearcat 210xl was purchased in 1980 or

81, and you can clearly see it in the pictures of
my station in 1985 and 1990 as shown on my

website.

Secondly cordless phones were not on 27

MHz (What idiot would put cordless phones on
the already crowded CB band?).

The same type idiot that comes out here pretending he knows all kinds of
things about all kinds of things, but knows jack **** intimately.
www.affordablephones.net/HistoryCordless.htm LMAO,,the feds did it,
genius. They most certainly WERE on 27 in their beginning.
The 1st 49 MHZ came about in or around 1986. Talk that smack, David.

Wrong. The first 49 Mhz (with 1.7 Mhz return)

was on the market earlier than 1986, because

I was listening to them long before then.


Sure, David,,"the info is wrong" again, eh?
Instead of relying on the compiled history of the phones, one should
rely on you....after all, your memory has proved astute regarding such
things that normal ops remember, such as antenna brands they used over
the years.

I bought my Yaesu FT-757 in 1984 (I still

.have the receipt), and I used it to catch the

cordless phone base frequency, while the

Bearcat scanner was tuned to the initial 10

(Later upped to 25) 49 Mhz frequencies. In

fact, you've just given me the inspiration for

another article for my website. I'll provide all

the details there.



Ah,,,so you were wrong claiming the first phones were 27 MHZ and I was
wrong concerning the first programmable scanners..at least I can admit
it. The pain you are experiencing over being wrong will go away as soon
as you can accept it and move on from it instead of dwelling on it like
you do so often.


It's a darn shame that the cordless phones

came along when they did. They pretty much

ruined the 49 Mhz band as an unlicensed

hobby band. Prior to about 1982, there was a

budding group of low power experimenters

running 100 mW (And in some cases modified

6 meter ham gear) radios and trying to work

DX there. When the phones and baby

monitors arrived, that was the death knell for

that band for hobbyists and experimenters. I

still have my old Lafayette HA-240 on 49.860

Mhz.


The 46/49 Mhz phones (49 Mhz handset, 46

Mhz base) started around

1986. While I won't deny that the very first

phones might have actually been on 27 MHz,



You already denied it, David. Something is very wrong with you.


I was not into listening to them then (It would

have been a lot easier to do. Any modified CB

could have done it). I don't think those early

phones sold all that well. I never saw or heard

one in my area.

As usual, your lack of knowledge of the subject was illustrated
perfectly. Such lack of knowldge of the subject prevents you from
discussing it further.

My knowledge was from direct personal

.experience. I know you're too young to

.remember back that far, but the first truly

legitimate cordless phones used 49 Mhz for

the handset and 1.7 Mhz (Just above the AM

broadcast band) for the base unit.



Wrong. The first available cordless phones were 27 MHZ.

Find an old timer and ask them if you don't

believe me.


You're the one claiming the info is wrong, David, but that burden of
providing for your claim is always to great a cross for you to bear.

If the FCC or the phone lobby doesn't want

people listening in, they need to block out

those frequencies or scramble the

transmissions.

Then the same logic can be applied to use of the freeband.

.=A0=A0How?

The method was your idea. The fact that you once again speak before
thinking is illustrated by no one better than yourself.

.Which means what exactly?


No one else is having trouble following. Ask for some help with just
what it means.

As usual, you are talking a bunch of circular

.nonsense.

Someday, I hope to read a nice long E-mail

from you outlining just how your postings were

all deliberate attempts at psychological

tweaking. I can far better respect you for being

that, than a unconscious dyslexic thinker.



I'm a freebander, David, and that is your problem and has always been
your problem ever since you claimed you were due respect by virtue of
your license. Such arrogance practically guarantees you to be the punch
clown of a cb group.

My faith in humanity is greatly lowered

knowing that such people exist and actually

think they know something.


Especially when their claims are all unsubstantiated like yours.
It was always
a crime to eavesdrop on one's private telephone conversation using
electronic equipment, David. It violates federal wiretap law, but your
position of "thinking like a criminal" (your words) is interesting.

.Wire tapping did not apply to radio devices at

that time.

It was still considered a telephone and as such was subject to the rules
and regulations governing telpephones..

.Nope. There was no provision in any wiretap

law at that time that specifically addresses

reception of cordless phones.



Here is once again where your incompetence comes into the picture. The
fact that they were cordless did not absolve them from the federal laws
governing telephone devices.


So by using your logic, if it isn't specifically

called out as illegal, assume that it is legal.

That was the glaring loophole in the wiretap

law.

No loophole at all, just another wrong claim from you.

Then I'm sure you will provide the exact

verbiage to substantiate your claim?

Yea, well the group was sure you would provide for your technical
competence claims concerning your unsolicited invocation of a tech
school you felt important enough to mention, but, (sigh), as usual, you
provide nada g/.

There could be no reasonable expectation of

privacy when you run unencrypted analog FM

signals over a band that is generally easy to

receive by "common" radio receivers (Such as
a scanner).

One's expectations of privacy has nothing to do with the law, David.

.It has a great deal to do with it.

Again, prove me wrong if you can (But I won't

.hold my breath).

I've proved you wrong so many times with radio law that it's downright
dandy giving you the cord and watching you so eagerly jump to wrap it
around your neck. You are so quick to jump these days that you rant on
about things you have no clue.

.The only thing I have been wrong on was the

roger beep issue. And you didn't prove that.



Right David, everyone else that tried to explain the law to you the
manner in which I did was all a coincidence and collective lucky
guesses.
Feel better, dude?

I had to get the info myself from the FCC.


Yep, after you were instructed to becasue your ignorance and arrogance
would not permit your ego to believe everyone else who was telling you
that you were wrong.

As for anything else, you're just blowing

smoke.

Now, I'll say this as directly and as succinctly

as possible so that you will (hopefully)

.understand it.


It is you that is always begging repeat clairifications of those you
disagree, David. Projection of your dilemmas soothers you temporarily.


Please provide the exact verbiage in the

federal wiretap law, as is was around 1984,

that specifically addresses reception of

cordless phones.



(sigh) I am going to offer you the chance to stop filling the shoes of
hypocrisy. Proper communication (something you have difficulties with)
dictates when one makes a claim, it is up to that person to provide to
substantiate the claim when challenged, as the burden of proof is
usually on the claimant. When one is asked to provide for their claims,
one is supposed to answer for those claims prior to demanding and foot
stomping and begging others to so when you have failed to do so. You
were asked several times by several people to provide for your
ever-mounting lists of unsolicited claims. Your refusal to do so
prevents you from asking the same of others.


I am more than willing to post the links to the

ECPA, showing the date that it became

effective and what it covers.

Yet for some reason, you have spasms when asked to do so for your past
lies, such as your tech school, your LEO friends, everything -you-
mentioned or brought up.
Try reading what applied to your situation, not what you think gave you
permission to violate the law.

The ECPA is what specifically addresses

wireless phone devices.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the
law. If you are going to break the law, you should at least be educated
about the law you break and penalties you face.

.Remember that each time you run your

unlicensed transmitter on the freeband.....

My Ten-Tec needs no license or acceptance.

True, for the amateur bands where authority to
operate is granted to a properly licensed

amateur (Which BTW, are you one?),



Irrelevant where you are concerned.

and type acceptance of radio gear is not

required. However, the radio is not authorized

to operate anywhere other than the amateur

bands except by license or authorization (such
as MARS or CAP). Certain other bands

require type acceptance of radio gear. The

land mobile service (which is what the

freeband was once part of) does (As does the

CB band). So your Ten Tec is not type

accepted to operate on the land mobile band,

and you are not licensed as an operator on

that band. That's two strikes.

You said my radio was unlicensed on the freeband..this would be compared
to what.......do you have an example of a licensed
transmitter on the freeband besides the ones I already provided in the
past?
See, this is another example
of your **** poor retainment skills, as you have been informed on
repeated occasion that as an extra, you ought know such things, but then
again you are the deviant exception to hammie ops, not the norm.

You are the one who doesn't understand radio

law.



I'm not the one who denied roger beeps were legal based on my own
personal feelings despite the contingency trying to correct your
ignorance of the law,,,-you- were.

No matter how many time you spew your

convoluted understanding of the law, it will not
make it right.



Again, the only person that has illustrated a grave misinterpretation of
any law has been yourself.

You are not authorized to operate a

transmitter on the freeband without a license.


And after all these years you still can not convince yourself that it
doesn't matter to me, only you.

It is not a band authorized by rule, therefore

the operator requires a station license. If you

don't have one, you are not authorized to run

there, Period.



No one ever tried to say otherwise, David,,,where exactly is it that you
became lost on such subjects?

David T. Hall Jr.

."Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj