"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

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
"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