rom what I've heard, the interference
consisted mostly of random insulting comments, and not necessarily
jamming of the system in a way that would prevent it from working.

and that's exactly what happened to me with the county fair's business channel
of CB channel 14.

I had my CB on in my car. There was NO ONE talking on CB channel 14. I
transmitted a "breaker, breaker" to talk to some one, and as soon as the
operators of the fair heard me say "Breaker, Breaker", they started
transmitting accusations of me illegally transmitting on their "business
channel of CB channel 14" and ""causing delibirate interference to" their
"business communications."

It seems to me that the fast food prankster is pretty much the same thing IF
he's operating on a MURS frequency and simply talking back to the customers he
hears on the frequency.

Carl's Jr. implimented a company directive to dispatch ALL
non-essential employees to the parking lot ASAP when an "attack" occured.

heheheheh. I can hear my local McDonald's drive through from my house which is
way down some streets from it.

but my McDonald's drive through operates on a frequency that I think is illegal
for any of the public to transmit on ( a UHF frequency, though now I want to
look and see if it's a FRS frequency or not or some such thing).

But if I could legally transmit on that frequency and IF I did from home, they
would NEVER find me by looking in their parking lot.

Oh, they might find me alright if I did, but they wouldn't find me by looking
in their parking lot if I did that.

But I prefer to just secretly listening, especially after all of the news
reports last year of one certain McDonald's employee purposely spitting in
customers' drinks whenever they ordered the drinks with "no ice", among doing
other things to the customers' food and drinks for certain similar reasons.

none of which was the customers' fault. In my opinion, the customers have the
right to order their soft drinks with "no ice".

And not have the employee spit in them just because they ordered them with "no
ice".

You are both idiots, and should be made into soap and candle wax.
--

sounds like you've watched the old movie "House of Wax" one too many times.

Well, just like the MURS frequencies, there was a time that the CB frequencies
also required a liscence for the CB'ers to operate on (no, I'm not talking
about the hams when it was a ham frequencies).

Then one day, the FCC allowed anyone to operate on CB frequencies without a
liscence as long as they were within the legal power limits.

and then the people who were running businesses on the CB channels had to put
up with interference from people simply talking on them.

Now, while the MURS service never required a liscence as far as I know, the
MURS frequencies did use to require a liscence when they used to be
business-only frequencies.

However, they are now MURS frequencies which are legal for anyone to operate on
liscence free within legal power limits, just like the CB channels.

by the way, the news recently rreported that the government is thinking of
handing over ALL radio frequency assignments to the white house instead of the
FCC!!!!

as part of preventing terrorism under the "homeland security".

Therefore, ALL communications frequencies might be reassigned if that happens.

However, I think the news said that Congress has to approve it first for it to
happen. That is, Congress has to approve that all frequency assignments are
now under control and assigned by the White House (or by Congress) instead of
by the FCC.

What wil that do to our scanning hobby if that happens?

Well, the broadcast radio and broadcast tv channels wil most likely stay the
same (except for the already approved changes which haven't went into effect
on-air yet (the turn-off of all analog stations at the end of 2006, beginning
of 2007, and the reduction of tv channels to only channels 2 through 51 instead
of the current 2 through 69.

and I remember when it used to be channels 2 through 83.

I always wanted to see a TV channel 83 operational. here in my area.

I guess I never wil now.

g a Taco at a Burger King window be it via the radio or
otherwise is a prank.

true. As I said before, you don't even need a radio to do the prank you
mentioned above.

People have ordered food at drive throughs and then pulled away just as a prank
so that the car behind them either gets charged for the food they didn't order
or get the food they didn't order instead of the food they did order.

And that would do just as much damage to the business as the original fast food
prrankster that this thread was talking about.

or as you say, ordering a Taco at the Burger King drive through.

I did make one mistake in this post. I said you don't need a radio to do it.

However, the truth is that even if you don't use your own transmitter, you are
technically using a radio transmitter whenever you order at a drive through
window. It just happens to be the fast food restaurant's own radio transmitter
you're using whenever you order through there.

so now what we have here is this situation that people in this thread are
saying:

If you use the businesses own transmitter, even though you don't have a
business liscence to transmit on those frequencies (technically illegal under
FC rrules) by ordering at the drive throughwindow, it is perfectly legal.

but if you use your own transmitter on the same frequency, it's illegal, even
though you're still transmitting on the same frequency just as you do when you
order at the drive through window.

Honestly, like the government doesn't have its hands in enough. Now
they need to police the drive-thru window and baby monitors?


they probably will about baby monitors now after at least two of the tv
stations here reported about other people you don't know being able to see and
hear inside your house by using their own baby monitors in their catr and
driving around to see whose houses they could see into on their baby monitors
so that they could steal whatever you have in your house or know when the baby
or kids are left alone and kidnap them.

After at least two of the tv stations here reported thois on the news at
different times , different days (maybe more stations here), I don't doubt that
there might eventually be legislation passed to outlaw monitoring these
frequencies ( just like cell phones and cordless phones were outlawed)

although they'll ignore that technically, by just using your own baby monitor,
you are technically monitoring that frequency.

And if your neighbor happens to get one and uses the same frequency, you can
see into their house.

One of the stations reported on that situation also.

They put another video baby monitor into a neighbors' house of a lady who
already had one on the same frequency and showed her that when hers was turned
off, she could see into her neighbor's house and vice versa, that here neighbor
could see into her house on it even both monitors were in their own houses.

When I got my most recent scanner, I went to listen to ham radio and ham tv
frequencies in the 900 MHZ, but all I got was cordless phones.

And I still haven't figured out how I can possibly stay tuned to the ham
frequencies I want to listen to and watch and avoid the cordless phone calls
since I don't know when the cordless phone conversations wil be over.

At first, I thought that they were legal to listen to, siince they used to be
legal to listen to years ago, although I don't because it's boring anyways, but
now that I know it's illegal to listen to:

How the heck can I legally listen to those frequencies for ham radio and ham tv
statioms since if I turn the radio off when a cordless phone starts (or turn
the radios chanel), I won't know when the phone convo will be over (there's no
way to know) and miss the ham communications I want to listen to and watch.

or else leave the radio on tuned to those channels so that I don't miss the ham
radio and ham tv signals I want to see and hear, but to do so, have to leave it
on when a cordless phone convo starts on those channels which is illegal to do.

and then there's the little fact that ham radio and ham tv transmissions are
much more powerful than part 15 radio devices and ham signals can wipe out the
cordless signals at any time on the same frequency.

I'm not a ham. I just like to listen. But how the heck can I legally keep
scanning for ham frequencies in the 900 MHZ range when I have to either turn
the radio off whenever a cordless phone starts or turn the station whenever a
cordless phone starts, and then not know when the cordless phone convo is over
( not know when I can legally turn back to the frequeencies to search for ham
signals or listen to ham signals on those frequencies???

I haven't really listened to 900 MHZ yet, although I did take a quick look up
there as I was interested in fast-scaan ham tv, (pun not intended) none of
which I saw on any of the ham bands that my scanner is capaable of picking up.
400 MHZ, 90 MHZ, 1240-1300 MHZ, and 2.4 GHZ.

I read that the 400 MHZ band is the most popular to see ham tv, but I also read
that ham tv and ham radio transmissions are not allowed in the 400 MHZ ham band
in my area of the U.S. Well, at least not a portion of it.

Then after learning how to read sensitivity specs, I decided to start my
scanning on the lower frequencies and go up from there, for my most recent
scanner.

which I will probably start seriously monitoring pretty soon.

I've only just fooled around with it so far, with occasional light monitoring
of various things.

I would dare say that *most* hams partake in such behavior at least
occasionally.


that is sooooo true. I know of a few particular ham radio operators in my
area who are guilty of being involved in highly illegal activities and they got
away with it!!!!

and not just radio related stuff, but other highly ilegal activities not having
anything to do with radio. And they got away with it because they were ham
radio operators and knew influential people in the local courts around here and
knew other influential people around the county here also.

The law may say that judges have to step down when they have a "conflict of
interest". However, in real life, it doesn't happen that way. In real life,
the judges with "conflict of interest" stay on the bench in the cases and abuse
their power.

The illegal activities that I know they were guilty of happened about a decade
ago.

and now I know all too well about how judges abuse their power and let
criminals get away with stuff and that judges with "conflict of interest" don't
really step down from cases like the law says they're supposed to.

I've learned all too well from those hams doing that. I have always tried to
sttay on the legal side of the law. Those particular hams stayed on the
illegal side of the law, and got away with it!!!!!

and are still operating as ham radio operators.

Likely some of the new no code types that can't give up there 11 meter ways.

you are wrong. These were REAL ham radio operators doing all of that higly
illegal stuff, both radio-related and non-radio related.

As I said, the ones I know about above happened about a decade or two decases
ago. (their highly illegal activities crossed from one decadee to the other.
the 80's and 90's and they are probably still at it), and that was WAY before
the FCC ever passed the law that allows no-code ham radio operators.

so these ham radio operators that were involved in committing highly illegal
activities did indeed study the Morse Code requirements and learned it ( or
else they would never have gotten the ham radio liscences that they have).

These code-learned ham radio operators were involved in highly ilegal
activities, both radio-related activities and non-radio related activities.

and these criminals got away with it!!!!!!!!!!! Just because they knew a lot
of influential people around here since they used their ham liscenes to these
people as "proof that they're not criminnals since no hams would cxommit any
criminal act and all hams always do only what is legal". whooo-hooo!!! What a
laugh. I know MUCH better now.

By the way, I'm one of those who would take the no-code liscence, but I always
try to stay on the legal side of the law, unlike those paarticual code-learned
hams who committed a BUNCH of HIGHLY illegal acts.

so that blows your theory of no-code ham operators being the kind of hamds who
would do that .

And it also blows your theory of no code-learnned hams would ever commit
illegal activities.