| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It would seem that anyone can control access to and use of any device on
their property. Most likely it would be returned when the student (or whoever) left the premises. I remember well a problem at my worksite back in the 70s. Due to bickering over radio stations, department policy was to no longer allow radios at work (unless earphones were used). A couple of idiots had to have a boom box turned up loud on one machine. A supervisor went over to ask them to turn it down. "you aren't our boss" was the reply. The supervisor returned with the department head (he was the department head over 3 departments - and this was one of his departments). "who the h*ll are you?" the one asked. 10 minutes later, security turned up along with the superintendent. The radio was comfiscated. They were told that the radio would be returned when they left work. If it ever showed up again, they would be out the door and out of a job, no questions asked. I suspect that something like this may be going on. Some schools may have a policy against cell phones. It is their call and taxpayers' money. I had a problem with a neighbor some years ago (I had a judgement against him and he wasn't going to pay). He had roofers working on his house and they had their ladder on my property. I asked them to move it. They didn't. I called the police. The cop was nice and tried to explain the situation to me. I simply informed him that he didn't have the full story. I didn't have to let anyone on my property, not even him unless he had a search warrent. He got the message and sent the roofers packing. Pure and simple. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "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? 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? Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to confiscate it? 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? -- Phillip Michael |
You do have the right to ban a device, but can they ban or limit uses based
on interference? "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... It would seem that anyone can control access to and use of any device on their property. Most likely it would be returned when the student (or whoever) left the premises. I remember well a problem at my worksite back in the 70s. Due to bickering over radio stations, department policy was to no longer allow radios at work (unless earphones were used). A couple of idiots had to have a boom box turned up loud on one machine. A supervisor went over to ask them to turn it down. "you aren't our boss" was the reply. The supervisor returned with the department head (he was the department head over 3 departments - and this was one of his departments). "who the h*ll are you?" the one asked. 10 minutes later, security turned up along with the superintendent. The radio was comfiscated. They were told that the radio would be returned when they left work. If it ever showed up again, they would be out the door and out of a job, no questions asked. I suspect that something like this may be going on. Some schools may have a policy against cell phones. It is their call and taxpayers' money. I had a problem with a neighbor some years ago (I had a judgement against him and he wasn't going to pay). He had roofers working on his house and they had their ladder on my property. I asked them to move it. They didn't. I called the police. The cop was nice and tried to explain the situation to me. I simply informed him that he didn't have the full story. I didn't have to let anyone on my property, not even him unless he had a search warrent. He got the message and sent the roofers packing. Pure and simple. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "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? 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? Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to confiscate it? 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? -- Phillip Michael |
"Phillip Michael" wrote
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? Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to confiscate it? I don't know if they can confiscate it, but they certainly are within their rights to prohibit use of the device on their premises. Since a cell phone transmits a signal even when not placing a call, they can require that the unit be turned off at all times while on the premises. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Better think of a better example than a cordless phone unless you are
referring to a cell-phone..... Unless the kid lives really close to the school. The range is not that great on those things, at least not for sustained communications. The school district may decide to confiscate anything that violates their publicized rules. If they feel it is interrupting or distracting the students or feel that whatever the object is, is unsafe, then they could confiscate. (unsafe object could be a knife for example) A student is considered a "guest" on the premises and therefore does not have exclusive rights as he would in his own home. -- Ryan KC8PMX Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. "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? 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? Also if a student's device is under part 97 do you still have the right to confiscate it? 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? -- Phillip Michael |
|
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 |
Jud Heinman wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... 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 **** YOU! Get a Life 73 de Jud WOW! what an intelligent reply. |
(Len Over 21) wrote
In article , (Hans K0HB) writes: Since a cell phone transmits a signal even when not placing a call, they can require that the unit be turned off at all times while on the premises. It does? Yes, Lenover, it does. Oh, yes, the receiver's Local Oscillator "transmits" a picayune picoWatt or so... And much more than the picayunish oscillator leakage you allude to (if the receiver is even so crude as to have an actual Local Oscillator)...... As soon as a cell phone is powered up it immediately establishes radio communications with the MTSO over the control channel, comparing SID's, negotiating a registration request, and other similar housekeeping chores. This radio communications occurs even if you never actually place an outgoing call or recieve an incoming call. Sunuvagun! With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- http://home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com