In article , John wrote:

Actually, Title 47, Part 15, specifically allows unlicensed intentional
emissions. For example, in the AM broadcast band:

#snip#

This is only an example. Most of the spectrum is available for unlicensed
operation at low power, with some frequencies having higher emission limits
than others. Therefore, intentional unlicensed emissions are allowed by US
regulations. Read Part 15.

True. However, Part 15 also states:

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical
(ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.

It seems to me that the "no harmful interference" clause would
put cellphone jammers outside the bounds of operation under Part 15.

As far as cellphone use on private property goes... it's certainly
within a property owner's right to declare, and enforce a "no
cellphone use" policy on that property. I cheer every time I see such
a notice.

It's also almost certainly within a property owner's right to include
some sort of perimeter/periphery shielding (passive, nonradiating
interference) to block cellphone signals from entering the property.

It's questionable, to me, whether the property owner would be able to
get away with using an active interferer, such as a jamming
transmitter. The user _might_ win in court, if it could be shown that
the jamming signal was strictly limited to the private property in
question. However, if enough of the jamming signal left the area to
[1] violate the radiated-power limits in Part 15, or [2] result in any
interference with cellphone use as little as a foot outside the
property line, the property owner would probably lose (IMO).

To keep the jamming signal strictly within the property lines, you'd
probably have to Faraday-shield the whole building... at which point
you probably wouldn't need the jamming transmitter.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:53:10 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

In article , John wrote:

Actually, Title 47, Part 15, specifically allows unlicensed intentional
emissions. For example, in the AM broadcast band:

#snip#

This is only an example. Most of the spectrum is available for unlicensed
operation at low power, with some frequencies having higher emission limits
than others. Therefore, intentional unlicensed emissions are allowed by US
regulations. Read Part 15.

True. However, Part 15 also states:

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical
(ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.

It seems to me that the "no harmful interference" clause would
put cellphone jammers outside the bounds of operation under Part 15.

As far as cellphone use on private property goes... it's certainly
within a property owner's right to declare, and enforce a "no
cellphone use" policy on that property. I cheer every time I see such
a notice.

It's also almost certainly within a property owner's right to include
some sort of perimeter/periphery shielding (passive, nonradiating
interference) to block cellphone signals from entering the property.

It's questionable, to me, whether the property owner would be able to
get away with using an active interferer, such as a jamming
transmitter. The user _might_ win in court, if it could be shown that
the jamming signal was strictly limited to the private property in
question. However, if enough of the jamming signal left the area to
[1] violate the radiated-power limits in Part 15, or [2] result in any
interference with cellphone use as little as a foot outside the
property line, the property owner would probably lose (IMO).

To keep the jamming signal strictly within the property lines, you'd
probably have to Faraday-shield the whole building... at which point
you probably wouldn't need the jamming transmitter.


If you should intentionally jam or cause a cell phone not to operate
by deliberately imposing shielding of the signals and someone with an
emergency tries to make a call, Guess who is going to get sued! And
probably win. Regardless of what federal laws are or are not violated.

73
Gary K4FMX

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article , John
wrote:

Actually, Title 47, Part 15, specifically allows unlicensed intentional
emissions. For example, in the AM broadcast band:

#snip#

This is only an example. Most of the spectrum is available for unlicensed
operation at low power, with some frequencies having higher emission
limits
than others. Therefore, intentional unlicensed emissions are allowed by
US
regulations. Read Part 15.

True. However, Part 15 also states:

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical
(ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.

It seems to me that the "no harmful interference" clause would
put cellphone jammers outside the bounds of operation under Part 15.


No argument from me on that point. I was merely addressing the broad
statement that transmitting in the US on any frequency without a license is
not permitted. I was not implying that is okay to interfere with cellular
operation or, for that matter, any other service.

John

hope no crazy guy tries to attack anyone, they can't phone for help on the cell

Bob Bob wrote:

Gidday Jack

I heard a story that in Australia's government house there are wide band
jammers or large amounts of shielding installed so that mobile phones
will not "go off" in the senate and house of reps chambers.

Note that this would contravene the laws in Autralia on jamming devices.

If that isnt an endorsment nothing is!

Cheers Bob

Jack Painter wrote:
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

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. There are reasonable exceptions, before the
crazies ask what about a 1,000' balloon with radar reflector in your
airspace right next to an airport. Get real. We're talking about a
restaurant owner's right to make his interior airspace incompatible with
cellular signals, and nobody can argue he doesn't have the right to do that,
with or without notifying you of it. It's a courtesy if he tells you, tough
luck if he doesn't.

Similarly, the government regulates and (tries) to ensure the operability of
public communications while mitigating unnecessary or malicious
interference. Neither apply to a private property owner's right to have
cell-phone signals blocked on his property. If he invites the public, some
states might pass laws to require he notifies the public of that blockage,
but neither is it the public's right to assume that is so. A locality could
also decide it will prevent cell signals during any venue that takes place
on property it owns or leases. It's reasonable, it's "legal", and it's
happening. Before long, somebody will concoct a way to beat those blockers,
probably by a jam-resistant receiver card that plugs into the phone's
antenna. Then you'll have to check your gun and your cellphone with the
maitri d'. ;-)

Jack
Virginia Beach

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05...
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

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.


Your wishes do not carry the force of law. Certainly, you may shield your
property from unwanted emissions. However, can you cite any allowance for
deliberate jammers, especially for a licensed service, in the CFR?

Ed
wb6wsn

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:M6L6c.9938$F91.9269@lakeread05...
"Me" wrote in message
...
In article rlt6c.8629$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.


Ahhh, then you ARE a lawyer!

Ed
wb6wsn

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05...
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.


Using this logic, it is okay to pirate encrypted satellite signals
encroaching on your property....

Pete

"Ed Price" wrote in message
news:zGV6c.19641$uh.2226@fed1read02...

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05...
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

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.


Your wishes do not carry the force of law. Certainly, you may shield your
property from unwanted emissions. However, can you cite any allowance for
deliberate jammers, especially for a licensed service, in the CFR?

Ed
wb6wsn


Ed,

Don't mistake my comments as inviting anyone to break the law. But also
avoid the trap of thinking that permission from the government is required
in order for you to act.

I've noticed that good Amateur Radio operators behave in a most responsible
fashion, proud of the responsiblity and mindful of the consequences of radio
operation. But the word priviledge is something reserved for a
self-regulated hobby like amateur radio, not the law. The law and the
constitution do not grant citizens "priviledges".

In a previous part of this thread a member already gave the example of
intentional radiators (low power) allowed. If that (part 15 ?) exemption was
not there, it would still not make the force of law any more permissable for
government to interfere with the rights of a property owner, as long as (he)
was not harming interstate commerce, which is the currently used
(wider-than-hell and not always defendable) definition for every new
encroachment on our Constitution. Patriot act definitions will probably not
survive long enough to be tried in a court, but if they were the standard,
even the rumour that you were thinking about signals would subject you to a
search.


73's,

Jack

"Ed Price" wrote
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

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.


Your wishes do not carry the force of law. Certainly, you may shield your
property from unwanted emissions. However, can you cite any allowance for
deliberate jammers, especially for a licensed service, in the CFR?

Ed
wb6wsn
Ed,

Don't mistake my comments as inviting anyone to break the law. But also
avoid the trap of thinking that permission from the government is required
in order for you to act.

I've noticed that good Amateur Radio operators behave in a most responsible
fashion, proud of the responsiblity and mindful of the consequences of radio
operation. But the word priviledge is something reserved for a
self-regulated hobby like amateur radio, not the law. The law and the
constitution do not grant citizens "priviledges".

In a previous part of this thread a member already gave the example of
intentional radiators (low power) allowed. If that (part 15 ?) exemption was
not there, it would still not make the force of law any more permissable for
government to interfere with the rights of a property owner, as long as (he)
was not harming interstate commerce, which is the currently used
(wider-than-hell and not always defendable) definition for every new
encroachment on our Constitution. Patriot act definitions will probably not
survive long enough to be tried in a court, but if they were the standard,
even the rumour that you were thinking about signals would subject you to a
search.

73's,

Jack

" Uncle Peter"
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.


Using this logic, it is okay to pirate encrypted satellite signals
encroaching on your property....

Pete

Pete, you smirkingly use the word "pirate" to imply illegal activity, so
answer your own question. Sarcasm aside, then yes you may learn the nature
of anything that enters your property. But we are all well aware of the
consequences for acting on that knowledge.

Jack