"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