RFID Technology and Architecture, RFID Standards,RFID Applications,
RFID Security, Impact of RFID Tags on Recycling, Environmental
Challenges of RFID, RFID Tags: Advantages and Limitations,

http://flying-rugs.com/rfid-tutorial/

On 28 Jul 2006 12:47:05 -0700, wrote:


RFID Technology and Architecture, RFID Standards,RFID Applications,
RFID Security, Impact of RFID Tags on Recycling, Environmental
Challenges of RFID, RFID Tags: Advantages and Limitations,

http://flying-rugs.com/rfid-tutorial/

Imagine a WalWart store going in across the block from a ham station
running EME on 2.4 Gig. I wonder what a strong discrete carrier would
do the integrity of the RFID system. They would certainly need to be
far better than the end user WiFi stuff being sold.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:35 -0400, Roger
wrote:


Imagine a WalWart store going in across the block from a ham station
running EME on 2.4 Gig. I wonder what a strong discrete carrier would
do the integrity of the RFID system.

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

I imagine it would get you a visit from the FCC. Does the phrase
"deliberate interference" have any meaning to you?

We hams have enough bad PR problems without jerks like you getting on
the evening news.

Bill, W6WRT

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:35 -0400, Roger
wrote:


Imagine a WalWart store going in across the block from a ham station
running EME on 2.4 Gig. I wonder what a strong discrete carrier would
do the integrity of the RFID system.

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

I imagine it would get you a visit from the FCC. Does the phrase
"deliberate interference" have any meaning to you?

We hams have enough bad PR problems without jerks like you getting on
the evening news.

Bill, W6WRT

Except the Ham Station is a "Licensed Radio Service", which has Priority
over any unlicensed system for the purposes of "Interference Problems",
on ANY Frequency. Mr. WalWart wouldn't get two steps with the local FCC
as his is an unlicensed or Part15 operation, and is specifically subject
to, and must "accept" interference from a Licensed Radio Service, and
must not cause interference to any Licensed Radio Service using the same
frequency.

Me been there, Inspected that, shut down the unlicensed operation
had the "Big Shot" complain to HQ..... got him NOWHERE....

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:32:33 GMT, Me wrote:


Except the Ham Station is a "Licensed Radio Service", which has Priority
over any unlicensed system for the purposes of "Interference Problems",
on ANY Frequency. Mr. WalWart wouldn't get two steps with the local FCC
as his is an unlicensed or Part15 operation, and is specifically subject
to, and must "accept" interference from a Licensed Radio Service, and
must not cause interference to any Licensed Radio Service using the same
frequency.

Me been there, Inspected that, shut down the unlicensed operation
had the "Big Shot" complain to HQ..... got him NOWHERE....

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

Oh, you poor child.

One does not f**k with WalMart when it comes to interfering with their
inventory and checkout system.

We'll come visit you as often as we can. :-)

Bill, W6WRT

In article ,
Bill Turner wrote:

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:32:33 GMT, Me wrote:


Except the Ham Station is a "Licensed Radio Service", which has Priority
over any unlicensed system for the purposes of "Interference Problems",
on ANY Frequency. Mr. WalWart wouldn't get two steps with the local FCC
as his is an unlicensed or Part15 operation, and is specifically subject
to, and must "accept" interference from a Licensed Radio Service, and
must not cause interference to any Licensed Radio Service using the same
frequency.

Me been there, Inspected that, shut down the unlicensed operation
had the "Big Shot" complain to HQ..... got him NOWHERE....

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

Oh, you poor child.

One does not f**k with WalMart when it comes to interfering with their
inventory and checkout system.

We'll come visit you as often as we can. :-)

Bill, W6WRT

WallMart has to comply with the FCC Rules and Regulations, just like
every other company in the USA. RFID or whatever makes no difference.
If you think otherwise, show where the FCC has done other than
enforce it's Rules on commercial, noncommercial, or unlicensed
operations. RFID is an unlicensed or Part15 Service, and therefor
MUST comply with the requirments of Part15, if it is used inside
the USA. As the rules stand today, this means that the RFID System
MUST accept interference from ANY Licensed Radio Service, and MUST
NOT cause unreasonable interference with ANY Licensed Radio Service.
If such an interference complaint from a Licensed Radio Service
Station was received by the FCC and it was subsquently investigated, the
Investigating Engineer or Inspector would, site the Part15 Rules
to the interfering source, work with them to eliminate the interference
and if not successful, require the interfering source to cease
operation untill such time that the interference was eliminated
during operation, at the Licensed Radio Service Station. It wouldn't
matter if it was US Steel, WallMart, or IBM, the rules and enforcement
would be the same. Rules are rules, and the Rule of Law is what stands
here in the USA, and it applies to everyone, equally, Big Shot of little
guy........

Me if you can afford the airfare, come on down............

Roger wrote:
On 28 Jul 2006 12:47:05 -0700, wrote:


RFID Technology and Architecture, RFID Standards,RFID Applications,
RFID Security, Impact of RFID Tags on Recycling, Environmental
Challenges of RFID, RFID Tags: Advantages and Limitations,

http://flying-rugs.com/rfid-tutorial/


Imagine a WalWart store going in across the block from a ham station
running EME on 2.4 Gig. I wonder what a strong discrete carrier would
do the integrity of the RFID system. They would certainly need to be
far better than the end user WiFi stuff being sold.

Well, if the moon wasn't up they could get you for intentional interference.

Now if you had a 2.4 GHz propagation beacon...

"Me" wrote in message news:Me-

would be the same. Rules are rules, and the Rule of Law is what stands
here in the USA, and it applies to everyone, equally, Big Shot of little
guy........

You haven't been paying much attention to what has been going on with BPL,
have you?

...

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!