In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Ok Pollyana, let me spell it out for you:

1. You will begin transmitting a carrier on the RFID frequency as you
previously stated.

2. WalMart will have their golf and drinking buddies in the FCC track
you down. If necessary, WalMart will have a few senators and
representatives nudge the FCC a little. In this case, "nudge" means
"jump", as in "how high?".

3. The folks at the FCC will determine that you are causing deliberate
interference, a very serious violation in their opinion.

4. Your license will be yanked.

5. You will take a second and third job to pay for lawyers to fight
the *******s. You can't possibly earn enough so you go in debt to them
as well.

6. You will lose anyway and now you will be in debt up to your ears.

7. You will find that being in debt to lawyers is especially not fun.

8. You will wish you had never heard of RFID.

9. You will wish you had listened to Uncle Bill when you had the
chance.

And that's the truth.

Bill, W6WRT

None of the above, could even happen, UNLESS the CongressCritters
passed a Statute and it was signed by the President, to have the FCC
CHANGE it's Rules on Part15 Devices, which by the way would take a MAJOR
amount of time, as all these Rule Changes would be subject to NPRM
Requirements of Part2 and the Federal CFR Publication Process.

Your senerio is BULL****, and you wouldn't know the "Truth" if it
bit you on your Prompus ASS.

Ok SmartGuy, can you SHOW anywhere in FCC Records or Documents, where
the Commission acted in violation of it's own PUBLISHED Rules, in ANY
way similar to your above, BULL**** Senerio?

No? Really, Hmmmm, wonder why that is?
Must be your just full of it........

and just for your information, Field Operations doesn't work that way...
Investigations don't happen, like your dillusional senerio.....
Any good Communications Lawyer would blow the FCC out of the water,
should they act contrary to there own PUBLISHED Rules, in any Federal
District Court in the Land, should it ever get that far, and the FCC
Legal Counsel knows that, and would never allow the Commission to get
themselves in that situation, in the first place.......

Where do you come up with this stuff..... Nightmares R US......


Me

In article ,
Me wrote:

#snip#

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

#snip# rather scary scenario

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Ok Pollyana, let me spell it out for you:

1. You will begin transmitting a carrier on the RFID frequency as you
previously stated.

2. WalMart will have their golf and drinking buddies in the FCC track
you down. If necessary, WalMart will have a few senators and
representatives nudge the FCC a little. In this case, "nudge" means
"jump", as in "how high?".

3. The folks at the FCC will determine that you are causing deliberate
interference, a very serious violation in their opinion.

None of the above, could even happen, UNLESS the CongressCritters
passed a Statute and it was signed by the President, to have the FCC
CHANGE it's Rules on Part15 Devices, which by the way would take a MAJOR
amount of time, as all these Rule Changes would be subject to NPRM
Requirements of Part2 and the Federal CFR Publication Process.

Your senerio is BULL****, and you wouldn't know the "Truth" if it
bit you on your Prompus ASS.

Ok SmartGuy, can you SHOW anywhere in FCC Records or Documents, where
the Commission acted in violation of it's own PUBLISHED Rules, in ANY
way similar to your above, BULL**** Senerio?

Well, I read through the ARRL's FCC Rulebook last night, looking at
their definitions concerning interference and use of frequencies. The
FCC Part 97 regulations never use the word "deliberate" with regard to
interference at all! They use the words "willfully or maliciously",
which are similar but not quite the same.

I think Bill's scenario (which assumes a significant amount of
political collusion) is somewhat overblown, at least to the extent
that I can't see any evidence in the records that any case such as he
suggests has ever actually been prosecuted by the FCC.

On the other hand, this fact doesn't mean that an amateur operation
who deliberately set out to knock out Wal-Mart's Part 15 system would
not be subject to (legitimate) discipline under the current FCC rules.

As I see it, there are several issues here. One issue is that of "who
has authorization to use these frequencies, under what conditions, for
what purposes, with what protections?".

On that basis, the use of (e.g.) certain 2.4-gig frequencies by an
amateur radio operator, for legitimate amateur-radio communications
purposes "within the rules", certainly trumps any Part 15 applications.

The ham is not, however, allowed to just run wild on the airways. The
ham must comply with the FCC rules. Among the rules which appear
relevant in this case:

§97.101 (d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.

This is clearly a question of intent, not of effect. If your intent
in transmitting is to interfere with "any radio communication" - if
you're transmitting only for the purpose of jamming someone - then
you're breaking the rules and can be disciplined. On the other hand,
if the interference is a side effect of your otherwise-legitimate
transmissions on a band for which you have primary privileges, and the
interfered-with party is a Part 15 user who "must accept any
interference", then as far as I can see you're not obligated to either
shut down or take action to mitigate the interference.

97.313 (a) An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power
necessary to carry out the desired communications.

Simply blasting away with 1500 watts to reach somebody across town
wouldn't be reasonable. On the other hand, 1500 watts in an EME
setup would probably be reasonable, as long as the antenna system
and beam shape don't expose anyone to excessively high levels of RF.

So, I think it's likely to come down to the ham's being able to show
that his/her transmissions are part of a legitimate process of
communication with one or more other hams (i.e. that they are not
_intended_ to cause interference) and are otherwise in compliance with
the FCC regs and good amateur-radio and engineering practices. If
this is the case, the FCC is unlikely to be able to show good cause to
take action against the ham.

On the other hand, if a ham is simply keying up and transmitting a
high-power carrier, for no reason tied to any actual legitimate
amateur-radio purpose (communication, technical study,
experimentation, etc.), then the question of the ham's intent in doing
so would arise, and the ham might be charged with "wilfully or
maliciously" interfering with other radio communications.

Now, the FCC *could* choose to invoke 97.27, which allows them to
modify a station grant and place restrictions on it (e.g. limits on
operating hours, frequencies, modes, transmitter power). Such
modification-of-grant rules seem to have been put into place back in
the early years of television, in order to enable the FCC to restrict
some TVI-causing ham stations during prime television-watching hours.
The rule requires that the FCC determine :

(1) That such action will promote the public interest, convenience,
and necessity; or
(2) That such action will promote fuller compliance with the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or of
any treaty ratified by the United States.

The FCC has to make determination, issue a modification order in
writing, and give the ham 30 days to protest the modification, before
the terms of the modification can take effect.

It'd be interesting to see whether the FCC were willing to go on
record (in public and in writing) in an assertion that unclogging
Wal-Mart's Part 15 RFID system was necessary to promote the *public*
interest, convenience, and/or necessity.

--
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!

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:31:25 GMT, Me wrote:


Ok SmartGuy, can you SHOW anywhere in FCC Records or Documents, where
the Commission acted in violation of it's own PUBLISHED Rules, in ANY
way similar to your above, BULL**** Senerio?


------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Certainly I can. And you can too if you like.

For example, try getting the FCC to shut down a 500 KV power
transmission line because it's interfering with your ham radio
communications. This has been tried and the FCC's response is "That
would not be in the public interest". This actually happened.

A clear violation of the rules, but he who makes the rules can also
violate the rules.

And the word is spelled "scenario", DumbGuy.

Bill, W6WRT

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

Certainly I can. And you can too if you like.

For example, try getting the FCC to shut down a 500 KV power
transmission line because it's interfering with your ham radio
communications. This has been tried and the FCC's response is "That
would not be in the public interest". This actually happened.

A clear violation of the rules, but he who makes the rules can also
violate the rules.

And the word is spelled "scenario", DumbGuy.

Bill, W6WRT

Well lets look at the case sited. 500KV Powerline is not in and of it
self a Licensed User. Their emmissions come under Part15, and what
"Proof" was submitted to the FCC that the PowerLine was the cause?
Power Companies, in general, are required to maintain their systems
so as to eliminate emissions, when they interfere with Licensed Radio
Services. They are required to replace insulators that are bearking
down and flashing over causing radiated emissions. These type of
issues are handled by the FCC every day, and I have PERSONALLY dealt
with this type of regulatory issue, many times, just like the neighbors
Fish Tank Heater causing Pink Noise from 10Khz on up to 25Mhz. There are
Case Files where the Commission has levied fines to Power Companies for
not replacing failed Insulators that caused MF/HF Interference. One of
the best ones, I remember, was a regional Power Company was issued a
$10K Notice of Forfiture for repeated failure to eliminate interference
from a line that passed a USCG MF/HF CommSta, after repeated Notices of
Violation. The CEO was named in the Notice, Personally, and he was given
10 days to reply, and if he didn't the Federal Marshal would be knocking
on his door, with a Warrent, signed by the local US District Attorny.
That got the CEO's attention and the insulators were repaired in
quick time. No more interference. USCG Base Commanders bloodpressure
returned to normal, and his mumbled threat to shoot every bad insulator,
was completly forgotten.
Billyboy, you seem to have issues with Federal Regulators that go far
beyond the scope of this news group. They have medication, that is
helpful in such situations. Have you looked into this for your Health?

Me

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:32:42 GMT, Me wrote:

Well lets look at the case sited.

You dunnit again. Are you grammar impaired? The word is "cited". How
can you be a jailhouse lawyer if you can't speeka da Inglish?

snip


500KV Powerline is not in and of it
self a Licensed User. Blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

snip

Like most jailhouse lawyers, you do not realize what is possible and
what is not. The FCC makes the rules, the FCC can break the rules.
They would of course call it "interpreting" the rules.

snip


Billyboy, you seem to have issues with Federal Regulators that go far
beyond the scope of this news group. They have medication, that is
helpful in such situations. Have you looked into this for your Health?

Yes I have. Jim Beam is my favorite medication and makes annoying
little ankle-biters like yourself easily tolerable. I'm sure you are
aware of it because your original post about what a great idea it
would be to jam WalMart showed signs of over-medication.

snip


Me

Did you create that sig all by yourself? Perhaps you called in a
consulting firm?

Bill, W6WRT
who did create his own sig after only a few weeks