David wrote:
"Dream on. Those boogers are a constant source of entertainment. Unless
it's called ''digital'' they aren't encryted."

I never said there were none left to hear, just that newer ones being
sold have been using spread-spectrum for at least 6 or 7 years already.

So, what did you end up with Coon: the pussy, or a sore elbow?

In article ,
Dr. Artaud NoSuchThing @Notreal.com wrote:

It is against the law to monitor cordless phone frequencies.

The Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) ruled that as of
April 1994 no radio scanners may be manufactured or imported into the
U.S. that can pick up frequencies used by cellular telephones, or that
can be readily altered to receive such frequencies. (47 CFR Part 15.37

You've got your wires crossed. Cell phones are not cordless phones.

Cell phones operated under a different part of the regulations (Part 22?)
than cordless phones which are under the license free regulations
(Part 15).

Since there are numerous part 15 devices like baby monitors and wireless
speakers that operate on the same frequencies using the same modulation
schemes as the cheaper cordless phones, there's no protection.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:13:33 -0400, (RM MS) wrote:

David wrote:
"Dream on. Those boogers are a constant source of entertainment. Unless
it's called ''digital'' they aren't encryted."

I never said there were none left to hear, just that newer ones being
sold have been using spread-spectrum for at least 6 or 7 years already.

You pay extra for that. Many people just get whatever's cheapest, on
900 or 2.4.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:56:14 GMT, (Mark Zenier)
wrote:

In article ,
Dr. Artaud NoSuchThing @Notreal.com wrote:

It is against the law to monitor cordless phone frequencies.

The Federal Communications Commission (www.fcc.gov) ruled that as of
April 1994 no radio scanners may be manufactured or imported into the
U.S. that can pick up frequencies used by cellular telephones, or that
can be readily altered to receive such frequencies. (47 CFR Part 15.37

You've got your wires crossed. Cell phones are not cordless phones.

Cell phones operated under a different part of the regulations (Part 22?)
than cordless phones which are under the license free regulations
(Part 15).

Since there are numerous part 15 devices like baby monitors and wireless
speakers that operate on the same frequencies using the same modulation
schemes as the cheaper cordless phones, there's no protection.

Mark Zenier Washington State resident

You're not allowed to monitor cordless phones either.

(Mark Zenier) wrote in
:

Hi Mark, as always, the following states emphatically that listening to
cordless phones is illegal, then opens the issue to ambiguity in its
closing paragraph.

You have got to love law.

The following was from the listed link.

Regards,

Dr. Artaud



http://grove-ent.com/LLawbook.html

"Initially, cordless telephone conversations were not included in the
definition of an "electronic communication." That anomaly has now been
removed.

After making a blanket prohibition of intercepting all electronic (i.e.,
radio) transmissions, the statute lists the exceptions. The first
exception is that it is legal to listen to all radio transmissions which
are "readily accessible to the general public." This term used to be
defined in the statute to mean radio signals which are (1) not
encrypted, scrambled, carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary
to a radio transmission; (2) not transmitted over a common carrier
communications system (such as the phone company); (3) not special
transmissions such as point-to-point private relay transmissions for the
broadcast services, not meant for reception by the general public.

However, on October 25, 1994, Public Law 103-414 was enacted. This law
amended the ECPA to provide equal treatment to cordless telephone
conversations as cellular ones. However, it also amended the definition
of "readily accessible to the general public" to exclude all "electronic
communications." As noted above, electronic communications include
virtually all radio communications. And so, as the law now stands,
there is virtually no radio communication that is "readily accessible to
the general public." In essence, the lawmakers have closed up tight
this most useful exception to the general rule.

The federal government has cracked down hard on radio listening. At
this point the only legal listening outside the broadcast bands is:



(a) a communication relating to ships, aircraft, vehicles
or persons in distress;

(b) a broadcast by any governmental, law enforcement, civil
defense, private land mobile or public safety communications
system, including police and fire;

(c) transmissions on the amateur bands, citizens band or
general mobile radio services as well as any marine or
aeronautical communications system;

(d) satellite transmissions of cable programming as long as
the transmission is not encrypted, there is no monetary gain
by the viewer, and there is no marketing system available
(meaning no one is selling the rights to view the
programming via satellite).

(e) a radio transmission which is causing interference with
any lawfully operating station (including ham radio
operators), or is causing interference with any consumer
electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify
the source of the interference.

What if you are tuning around your general coverage receiver and come
upon something not contained on the federal "approved listening" list?
In order for a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2511 to be successful, the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the listener
intentionally intercepted a protected transmission. Since even
attorneys are unsure what frequencies are off limits, how can the
government hope to prove that a listener who happens upon one of these
federally-legislated minefields in the radio spectrum, actually intended
to do so? In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee report on the ECPA
states flat out that "the inadvertent interception of a protected
communication is not unlawful under this Act." (Senate Report 99-541)
Case law appears to bear this out. In United States v. Townsend, 987
F.2d 927 (2nd Cir. 1993), the court said that the word "intentionally"
in the ECPA means that a jury must find that the defendant acted
purposefully and the defendant's act must have been the product of the
defendant's conscious objective, rather than a product of mistake or
accident."




You've got your wires crossed. Cell phones are not cordless phones.

Cell phones operated under a different part of the regulations (Part
22?) than cordless phones which are under the license free regulations
(Part 15).

Every once in a while when I am listening to my Radio Shack scanner
radio (it is not modified in any kind of a way,it is just like it was
when it came from a Radio Shack store) I hear a man (sometimes it is a
lady's voice I hear) or a wonan dialing a pager messenger service in the
Jackson area and they leave a message on that pager service.What most
people do not know is,U.S.Citizens have the Right to listen to any and
all electronic messages.Regardless of what the so-called fcc
says.Anything I hear on my radios,my computers,my telephones,my tv
sets,my Radio Shack Amplified Listerner devices or anything else I own,I
have a perfect Right to listen to!
cuhulin

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:00:27 -0500, cuhulin wrote:

Every once in a while when I am listening to my Radio Shack scanner
radio (it is not modified in any kind of a way,it is just like it was
when it came from a Radio Shack store) I hear a man (sometimes it is a
lady's voice I hear) or a wonan dialing a pager messenger service in the
Jackson area and they leave a message on that pager service.What most
people do not know is,U.S.Citizens have the Right to listen to any and
all electronic messages.Regardless of what the so-called fcc
says.Anything I hear on my radios,my computers,my telephones,my tv
sets,my Radio Shack Amplified Listerner devices or anything else I own,I
have a perfect Right to listen to!
cuhulin

Unfortunately that is not true any more....


--
Korbin Dallas
The name was changed to protect the guilty.

OH YES! it is TRUE too! Anything that comes on my radios that is
interesting to me,I AM GOING TO LISTEN!
cuhulin

wrote:

OH YES! it is TRUE too! Anything that comes on my radios that is
interesting to me,I AM GOING TO LISTEN!
cuhulin

Yawn !!