"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:1F_6c.11827$F91.7199@lakeread05...
" 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


It is still intentional interference with a LICENSED service, regardless of
where it is used.

Pete

Remember blocking and jamming are different.

I think you will find that the cell phone companies and thus the
government can block any group of numbers or specific repeaters
easily.

Cell phones do not talk to each other directly so interrupting service
should be a relatively easy matter as far as those with the know how
and authority to do so.

I would think it would be very much like blocking, or black holing a
group of IPs at, or through a specific location or locations.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

I won't take your statements as anything but ignorance. Have you
successfully trained a radio wave to stop at your property line? It has been
stated on here before (though you probably don't read anything that might
make you look stupid) that any device of sufficient power to jam a cellphone
is not going to be contained within the boundaries of your property line
unless shielded to the point that it would be a waste of time as nothing
could get in either. A part 15 device is not going to have the power to be
effective, and if you up the power level, it is no longer considered a part
15 device. If you think the FCC doesn't enforce these rules, I invite you to
build your little problem maker and test your idea. Be aware that
intentional harmful interference is punishable buy a $10,000 fine and 5
years in prison. They don't enforce it on a regular basis but get a few from
time to time just as an example. It works.
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:EzZ6c.11821$F91.5512@lakeread05...

Don't mistake my comments as inviting anyone to break the law.

"CW" wrote in message
...
I won't take your statements as anything but ignorance. Have you
successfully trained a radio wave to stop at your property line? It has
been
stated on here before (though you probably don't read anything that might
make you look stupid) that any device of sufficient power to jam a
cellphone
is not going to be contained within the boundaries of your property line
unless shielded to the point that it would be a waste of time as nothing
could get in either. A part 15 device is not going to have the power to be
effective, and if you up the power level, it is no longer considered a
part
15 device. If you think the FCC doesn't enforce these rules, I invite you
to
build your little problem maker and test your idea. Be aware that
intentional harmful interference is punishable buy a $10,000 fine and 5
years in prison. They don't enforce it on a regular basis but get a few
from
time to time just as an example. It works.
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:EzZ6c.11821$F91.5512@lakeread05...

Don't mistake my comments as inviting anyone to break the law.


Since your deck of know-how comes from reading in these groups, it's a shame
that reading is so fundamentaly difficult for some people. So read more
carefully, please.

Once more, for the slow ones:

The FCC has never prosecuted anyone for blocking cellphone signals on
private property.

Probably the reason that intelligent people put up with so many hacks in
these groups is, in between great exchange of ideas and information,
sometimes it's fun to watch arguments like yours built on wax, and see them
melt into a puddle of no-return on the floor.

No business owner needs to worry about finding equipment to block my phone
anyway. Unlike the rude masses that the devices are needed for, if asked not
to use a cellphone, mine goes "off"


Jack

Your getting desperate. Now you're making claims about things you know
nothing about (actually, more that you know nothing about). My knowledge of
this subject is far deeper than yours ever will be and the fact that I read
this group simply proves that I read this group. Are you saying that
participation in a news group implies lack of knowledge? I am not going to
post my qualifications. I don't have to. The ridiculous statements you
continue to make show you to be the ignorant one. I think it's about time I
simply plonk you as it is becoming increasingly obvious that I am arguing
with an idiot. I have better things to do.


"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:Ppa7c.12939$F91.4325@lakeread05...

Since your deck of know-how comes from reading in these groups,

"CW" wrote
My knowledge of
this subject is far deeper than yours ever will be
"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:Ppa7c.12939$F91.4325@lakeread05...

Since your deck of know-how comes from reading in these groups,


You're an antagonist across every board, everywhere you go. Nobody cares
abut the radio experience you have if you choose to fight about everything
outside your experience and education. Your understanding of the law is
comical. Or it would be funny if you weren't such a cantankerous old crotch
that thinks his 8th grade social studies level of knowledge is meaningful in
the business world. Everybody has something to contribute here, but nobody
that acts like a wise guy when they can't cite law, read law, understand
law, quote correctly from the same newsgroup thread, or keep a train of
thought in a discussion can fool anyone about their knowledge level.

Sorry to the group that I was lured into the path so many were with CW, that
of assuming the years of radio operations would translate into meaningful
interaction with other people.

Jack

"Ed Price" wrote
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.
73's,

Jack

You should avoid the trap of thinking, since you are a good guy and a ham
and a citizen, that you have any right to emit electromagnetic energy.
Your
government has seen fit to enact legal restrictions on emission of
electromagnetic energy, over a broad frequency range. Perhaps you think
you
have some inalienable right to emit as you please; if so, you are placing
yourself in a bizarre legal area usually inhabited by the kooks who claim
that the Federal income tax is illegal.

First, let's address rights. Our Constitution says nothing about
electromagnetic energy. However, it does authorize the Federal government
to
regulate interstate commerce. The Communications Act of 1934 clearly
identifies the electromagnetic spectrum to be a national resource, usable
for commerce, and by the physics of the medium, quite certainly
interstate.
If you don't agree with that, then vote the rascals out! But be aware that
there seems to be an infinite supply of rascals!

So, now that the Feds are in control of the spectrum, they proceed to
authorize specific and limited usage of that national resource. The Feds
call this Licensing and Authorizing. Notice how this keeps "title"
reserved
to the Feds? You only get what they allow you; you have no "right" to the
resource.

To ease the policing requirements, the FCC allows certain unlicensed
emitters. And they don't meddle, so long as violators of the privilege are
not egregious. OTOH, as the IRS demonstrates every year, compliance by
intimidation really works. Abuse your privilege, by use of higher power,
bigger antennas, operation in a guarded frequency (not even low power Part
15 emitters may emit on emergency or certain satellite and research
frequencies), or by harming a licensed service in any way, and you will be
squashed flat by the majesty of the Federal bureaucracy.

Now, it's my opinion that a property owner has the right to control his
property in such a way as to exclude external electromagnetic energy. I
also
think he has the obligation to warn everyone that he allows onto his
property that he is doing said exclusion. However, when your property is
used by the general public (a theater, a golf course, a stadium), then you
must realize that exercise of your rights is often guided and constrained
by
Federal law. Currently, I don't think there is any Federal regulation that
addresses exclusion of EM energy from quasi-public locations. So that
means
that case law will be created by nasty (and sometimes minutely absurd)
lawsuits probing the boundaries and limits of what you can and can't do.
Opine all you wish, but, unless you like to bleed, you don't want to be on
the cutting edge of this procedure.


Ed
wb6wsn


Very well said, and I'm on the same page with you in all respects, save for
the minor point of duty to inform. As you also reminded us, that duty would
be driven more by avoidance of civil action but makes it just as important
for a business to comply with. I also mentioned earlier that some (most?)
States could or would pass laws requiring that duty.

Best regards,

Jack