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

"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

"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


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



TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.219 Operation in the band 510-1705 kHz.

(a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage
(exclusive of filament or heater power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts.
(b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground
lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 meters.
(c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be
attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.
Determination of compliance with the 20 dB attenuation specification may
be based on measurements at the intentional radiator's antenna output
terminal unless the intentional radiator uses a permanently attached
antenna, in which case compliance shall be deomonstrated by measuring
the radiated emissions.


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.

John

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

"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 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

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