|
Blocking cell signals can be legal
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 |
Just buy an aluminum helmet and you'll be ooookay.
|
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
These work best. Also keeps aliens and Art Bell from stealing your thoughts. :) Also know to keep radar. I just worry about my dog, I wonder if Osama Bin Laden is using one so the CIA can not find him? "Andy in NJ" SHORECOGS at COMCAST DOT NET wrote in message ... Just buy an aluminum helmet and you'll be ooookay. |
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 |
"Bob Bob" wrote in message
... 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. Hi Bob, For sure, the government that regulates can use selective enforcement however it chooses. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission probably makes it difficult to get type-acceptance for manufacture and sale of equipment designed to "jam" signals, and properly so. The cell phone industry has a decided interest in preventing widespread usage of devices designed to imperil their equipment performance. Using such a device on private property may be fine, if it does not interfere with signals outside the premises. But obtaining one in the first place will be difficult. Jack Virginia Beach |
"Bob Bob" wrote in message
... 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. Here in the states we have an even better method. It's called T-Mobile. Guarenteed that your cell phone won't ring. :) |
In article rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05,
"Jack Painter" wrote: On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding, etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters or tries to leave that property. Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain No.3? In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or Private. Nice try though...... me |
"Me" wrote in message
... In article rlt6c.8629$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$F91.8390@lakeread05, "Jack Painter" wrote: On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding, etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters or tries to leave that property. Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain No.3? In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or Private. Nice try though...... me Actually, Title 47, Part 15, specifically allows unlicensed intentional emissions. For example, in the AM broadcast band: TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents Subpart C--Intentional Radiators Sec. 15.219 Operation in the band 510-1705 kHz. (a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage (exclusive of filament or heater power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts. (b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 meters. (c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier. Determination of compliance with the 20 dB attenuation specification may be based on measurements at the intentional radiator's antenna output terminal unless the intentional radiator uses a permanently attached antenna, in which case compliance shall be deomonstrated by measuring the radiated emissions. This is only an example. Most of the spectrum is available for unlicensed operation at low power, with some frequencies having higher emission limits than others. Therefore, intentional unlicensed emissions are allowed by US regulations. Read Part 15. John |
"Me" wrote in message
... In article rlt6c.8629$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 |
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! |
|
"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 |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com