FCC Regualtions & Public Entities Policies
 

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

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

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? Oh, yes, the receiver's Local Oscillator "transmits" a
picayune picoWatt or so...severe QRM to anything within a
couple millimeters distance...

LHA

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

Sir,

Mr. Kane has a life *and* an education.
Are you jealous?

Curious in 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?

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

On 31 Oct 2003 17:35:18 -0800, Brian wrote:

That's why you find guys at the other end of the tunnel standing by
with computer controlled "law enforcement" scanners logging all the
codes as you pop out the other side and handshake with the local cell
site.

Then they sell them to Taliban operatives and drug dealers.

And they sell then to the guys who sell them to other guys who clone
cellphones which are sold to still other guys who set up curbside
"telephone booths" in immigrant neighborhoods to call relatives in
foreign countries at "discount rates".

At least they did have been doing those things for the last 10 years.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

Phil Kane wrote:
On 31 Oct 2003 17:35:18 -0800, Brian wrote:

That's why you find guys at the other end of the tunnel standing by
with computer controlled "law enforcement" scanners logging all the
codes as you pop out the other side and handshake with the local cell
site.

Then they sell them to Taliban operatives and drug dealers.

And they sell then to the guys who sell them to other guys who clone
cellphones which are sold to still other guys who set up curbside
"telephone booths" in immigrant neighborhoods to call relatives in
foreign countries at "discount rates".

At least they did have been doing those things for the last 10 years.

I don't think this happens very often any more, however. All the digital
phone standards I know about (CDMA, TDMA and GSM, I don't know about iDEN)
use encryption, both on the control channel and for the voice payload.
While I've seen academic criticism of the algorithms they use, I don't
think there is a practical way for a guy with a scanner hearing the
signals to crack this. Digital mobile phone service is still secure for
practical purposes.

The cellphone cloners used to get their data from the AMPS control
channel, which was unencrypted, but I'm pretty sure there are no cell
phone companies left which sell exclusively analog phone service (it has
probably been 5 years or more since you could buy an analog-only phone).
AMPS support continues to exist, by FCC mandate, only to support
off-network roaming, which means that pretty much the only AMPS users
you're likely to find are people away from home in rural areas not covered
by their provider's digital service. This is a small enough population
that the reduced opportunities for fraud of this type hardly justify
the cost of the equipment for programming the phones.

I think these days the bulk of cell phone fraud is subscriber fraud,
where service is obtained using someone else's name and personal
information.

Dennis Ferguson

On 4 Nov 2003 21:11:38 GMT, Dennis Ferguson wrote:

I think these days the bulk of cell phone fraud is subscriber fraud,
where service is obtained using someone else's name and personal
information.

That's what my sources tell me.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane