Actually I wanted to specifically say cordless phone, because college
policies also apply to any student living in a campus dorm.

Here is a link to GaTech's wireless policy.
http://www.oit.gatech.edu/inside_oit...icy_Rev1.9.cfm

They are doing two thing I don't agree with:
1) Banning wireless devices based on interference with their wireless
network.
2) Giving themselves the right to regulate all wireless devices on campus
property.

Phillip Michael
gtg154a @mail.gatech.edu

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:24:34 -0500, Phillip Michael wrote:

Actually I wanted to specifically say cordless phone, because college
policies also apply to any student living in a campus dorm.

They are doing two thing I don't agree with:
1) Banning wireless devices based on interference with their wireless
network.
2) Giving themselves the right to regulate all wireless devices on campus
property.

You may not agree with them, but they are certainly within their
rights to regulate the use of electronic devices on their property
as a condition of allowing you to enter upon and use their property.

Did I say "THEIR" property enough ? ggg

Several of my law clients are radio site owners, and we put similar
clauses in all the leases.

Don't like it? Get off the property. No one is forcing you to be
there and to use those electronic devices.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Well, my mistake to think it was something like a high school or grade
school.

If it indeed jepardized safety, maybe it would be an issue, as hospitals ban
them (cell and other transcievers...) but if it is interfering with
something else, especially part 15 devices, I don't think they would have
alot of ground to stand on.... merely opinion though.


"Phillip Michael" wrote in message
...
Actually I wanted to specifically say cordless phone, because college
policies also apply to any student living in a campus dorm.

Here is a link to GaTech's wireless policy.

http://www.oit.gatech.edu/inside_oit...es/Wireless_Ne
twork_Usage_Policy_Rev1.9.cfm

They are doing two thing I don't agree with:
1) Banning wireless devices based on interference with their wireless
network.
2) Giving themselves the right to regulate all wireless devices on campus
property.

Phillip Michael
gtg154a @mail.gatech.edu

"Phillip Michael" wrote in message ...
Is an entity such as a public school allowed to adopt a policy that allow
them to confiscate any device on their property that interferes with their
wireless devices?

Dunno. For example?

For example:
Both devices are Part 15.
The school owns a wireless access point.
A student owns a cordless phone.

If a cordless phone interferes with a wireless access point and
the school's policy says "they have the right to confiscate any device that
interferes with their wireless network"
Does the school really have the right to confiscate the cordless phone?

Not only can't they confiscate it, but they cannot even monitor it.

Since the Gingrich interception, the monitoring of cellular and
cordless phones has been illegal. But you knew that.

See any scanner catalog. Notice the really expensive scanners that
anyone overseas can purchase really cheap, but not you?

Those expensive scanners are for law enforcement agencies only. They
receive cellular frequencies. See the fine print.

To be able to monitor cellular or cordless phones requires a law
enforcement agency and a judge. The judge services the search
warrant/wire tap. Except for homeland security. I think just about
anything goes there.

Schools are not law enforcement agencies, or are they?

Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to
confiscate it?

Barrister Phil should say no. But lately he's been saying all sorts
of things.

Here is a phrase from Part 15.5.b
interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an
authorized radio station

Does this only apply to a device or to an individual using a device?

Are Part 15 devices authorized?

Part 15 says they are. Doesn't say "who" is authorized to use them.
I assume they are lawfully used by citizens, hams, school children,
and even Taliban.

I'm not a communications attorney, nor do I pretend to be one on
R.R.A.P., but Phil might be able to help you - if he's not mistaken.

On 31 Oct 2003 17:18:22 -0800, Brian wrote:

Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to
confiscate it?

Barrister Phil should say no.

Radio devices cannot be consfiscated by anyone because they are not
contraband as "controlled substances" are.

The school can seize (remove it from the student's possession) and
hold it for safekeeping until the student leaves the property only
if the student is on notice that this will happen if s/he does not
voluntarily turn it off or refrain from using it.

Of course the school will use the word "confiscate" but that's not
what's happening.

But lately he's been saying all sorts of things.

In which of the two languages that I am fluent in, the one language
that I can stumble through, or the several languages in which I can
curse ??

Does this only apply to a device or to an individual using a device?

Are Part 15 devices authorized?

Part 15 says they are. Doesn't say "who" is authorized to use them.
I assume they are lawfully used by citizens, hams, school children,
and even Taliban.

There is a restriction that Part 15 devices cannot be used for any
unlawful purpose. Ordering a plate of hummus and ypreki (stuffed
grape leaves) or kibbe (ground lamb kebabs) is not unlawful.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane