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

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

(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

(Hans K0HB) wrote in message . com...
(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.

To which question do you answer?

Transmitting a signal even when its not placing a call?

Requirement to turn off a -lawfully- allowed RF device?

Hopefully not yes to both.

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)......

Instead of the "DX" oscillator?

I've heard of cell site conmfirmation from 27 nm.

Thank goodness cell phones don't require a knowledge of Morse Code.

It would have been a monumental flop.

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.

Just relax and call it handshaking.

This radio communications occurs even if you
never actually place an outgoing call or recieve an incoming call.

Doesn't even rate a "duh!"

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.

Sunuvagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Yeh. Dittos

Brian

(Brian) wrote


This radio communications occurs even if you
never actually place an outgoing call or recieve an incoming call.

Doesn't even rate a "duh!"

You know that and I know that, but Lenover didn't even have a clue.

Sunuvagun!

With warmest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

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

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