Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters
or tries to leave that property. There are reasonable exceptions, before the
crazies ask what about a 1,000' balloon with radar reflector in your
airspace right next to an airport. Get real. We're talking about a
restaurant owner's right to make his interior airspace incompatible with
cellular signals, and nobody can argue he doesn't have the right to do that,
with or without notifying you of it. It's a courtesy if he tells you, tough
luck if he doesn't.

Similarly, the government regulates and (tries) to ensure the operability of
public communications while mitigating unnecessary or malicious
interference. Neither apply to a private property owner's right to have
cell-phone signals blocked on his property. If he invites the public, some
states might pass laws to require he notifies the public of that blockage,
but neither is it the public's right to assume that is so. A locality could
also decide it will prevent cell signals during any venue that takes place
on property it owns or leases. It's reasonable, it's "legal", and it's
happening. Before long, somebody will concoct a way to beat those blockers,
probably by a jam-resistant receiver card that plugs into the phone's
antenna. Then you'll have to check your gun and your cellphone with the
maitri d'. ;-)

Jack
Virginia Beach

Just buy an aluminum helmet and you'll be ooookay.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

These work best. Also keeps aliens and Art Bell from stealing your thoughts.

Also know to keep radar. I just worry about my dog, I wonder if Osama Bin
Laden is using one so the CIA can not find him?


"Andy in NJ" SHORECOGS at COMCAST DOT NET wrote in message
...
Just buy an aluminum helmet and you'll be ooookay.

Gidday Jack

I heard a story that in Australia's government house there are wide band
jammers or large amounts of shielding installed so that mobile phones
will not "go off" in the senate and house of reps chambers.

Note that this would contravene the laws in Autralia on jamming devices.

If that isnt an endorsment nothing is!

Cheers Bob

Jack Painter wrote:
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters
or tries to leave that property. There are reasonable exceptions, before the
crazies ask what about a 1,000' balloon with radar reflector in your
airspace right next to an airport. Get real. We're talking about a
restaurant owner's right to make his interior airspace incompatible with
cellular signals, and nobody can argue he doesn't have the right to do that,
with or without notifying you of it. It's a courtesy if he tells you, tough
luck if he doesn't.

Similarly, the government regulates and (tries) to ensure the operability of
public communications while mitigating unnecessary or malicious
interference. Neither apply to a private property owner's right to have
cell-phone signals blocked on his property. If he invites the public, some
states might pass laws to require he notifies the public of that blockage,
but neither is it the public's right to assume that is so. A locality could
also decide it will prevent cell signals during any venue that takes place
on property it owns or leases. It's reasonable, it's "legal", and it's
happening. Before long, somebody will concoct a way to beat those blockers,
probably by a jam-resistant receiver card that plugs into the phone's
antenna. Then you'll have to check your gun and your cellphone with the
maitri d'. ;-)

Jack
Virginia Beach

"Bob Bob" wrote in message
...
Gidday Jack

I heard a story that in Australia's government house there are wide band
jammers or large amounts of shielding installed so that mobile phones
will not "go off" in the senate and house of reps chambers.

Note that this would contravene the laws in Autralia on jamming devices.

If that isnt an endorsment nothing is!

Cheers Bob

Jack Painter wrote:
Mostly one sea-lawyer's rant in this group, was that it is illegal to
interfere with any radio signal, etc. That opinion is absent of
understanding the intent of that law, or where it may be applied.

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal,
shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that
enters
or tries to leave that property.

Hi Bob,

For sure, the government that regulates can use selective enforcement
however it chooses. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission
probably makes it difficult to get type-acceptance for manufacture and sale
of equipment designed to "jam" signals, and properly so. The cell phone
industry has a decided interest in preventing widespread usage of devices
designed to imperil their equipment performance. Using such a device on
private property may be fine, if it does not interfere with signals outside
the premises. But obtaining one in the first place will be difficult.

Jack
Virginia Beach

"Bob Bob" wrote in message
...
Gidday Jack

I heard a story that in Australia's government house there are wide band
jammers or large amounts of shielding installed so that mobile phones
will not "go off" in the senate and house of reps chambers.

Here in the states we have an even better method. It's called T-Mobile.
Guarenteed that your cell phone won't ring.

In article rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal, shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that enters
or tries to leave that property.

Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain
No.3?

In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any
electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be
contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or
Private.

Nice try though......

me

"Me" wrote in message
...
In article rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal,
shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that
enters
or tries to leave that property.

Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain
No.3?

In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any
electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be
contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or
Private.

Nice try though......

me

It doesn't help to reference code not properly cited. Then consider how the
U.S. Attorney General (pick your year of political flavor) decides that the
government will interpret specific circumstances of every federal case that
is not well supported by existing case law.

Some broad-reaching statements exist in most federal statutes that cannot be
applied to any individual circumstance, and broad language such as you
paraphrased is not appropriate here either. The Federal government has never
prosecuted anyone for jamming cellphone signals on private property, and
probably never will. The FCC might confiscate equipment that was in the act
of being illegally imported, illegally sold, used maliciously, or used for
profit against individuals or the public. It's a different animal on private
property, which you could learn something about before you rattle off
statutes again. Unless there was a clear case of a property owner's
interference outside the bounds of his property, there is no language in
that monsterous animal of the Communications Act of 1933 that empowers the
government to affect what you do on and "only on" your property with radio
signals. Other laws would apply to something obtained illegally and are not
the topic of discussion here.

Jack

"Me" wrote in message
...
In article rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal,
shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that
enters
or tries to leave that property.

Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain
No.3?

In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any
electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be
contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or
Private.

Nice try though......

me


Actually, Title 47, Part 15, specifically allows unlicensed intentional
emissions. For example, in the AM broadcast band:



TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION

CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Intentional Radiators

Sec. 15.219 Operation in the band 510-1705 kHz.

(a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage
(exclusive of filament or heater power) shall not exceed 100 milliwatts.
(b) The total length of the transmission line, antenna and ground
lead (if used) shall not exceed 3 meters.
(c) All emissions below 510 kHz or above 1705 kHz shall be
attenuated at least 20 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier.
Determination of compliance with the 20 dB attenuation specification may
be based on measurements at the intentional radiator's antenna output
terminal unless the intentional radiator uses a permanently attached
antenna, in which case compliance shall be deomonstrated by measuring
the radiated emissions.


This is only an example. Most of the spectrum is available for unlicensed
operation at low power, with some frequencies having higher emission limits
than others. Therefore, intentional unlicensed emissions are allowed by US
regulations. Read Part 15.

John

"Me" wrote in message
...
In article rlt6c.8629$F91.8390@lakeread05,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

On private property, one may install any device, counter-signal,
shielding,
etc that prevent or otherwise render inoperable any other signal that
enters
or tries to leave that property.

Bzzzzt, Wrong, would you like to try again for what is behind Curtain
No.3?

In the USA, deployment of any "Active" device that transmits any
electromagnetic signal, without the appropriate License, would be
contrary to US Law. Specificly CFR47, as this is Regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission for all US Territory, Public or
Private.

Nice try though......

me

It doesn't help to reference code not properly cited. Then consider how the
U.S. Attorney General (pick your year of political flavor) decides that the
government will interpret specific circumstances of every federal case that
is not well supported by existing case law.

Some broad-reaching statements exist in most federal statutes that cannot be
applied to any individual circumstance, and broad language such as you
paraphrased is not appropriate here either. The Federal government has never
prosecuted anyone for jamming cellphone signals on private property, and
probably never will. The FCC might confiscate equipment that was in the act
of being illegally imported, illegally sold, used maliciously, or used for
profit against individuals or the public. It's a different animal on private
property, which you could learn something about before you rattle off
statutes again. Unless there was a clear case of a property owner's
interference outside the bounds of his property, there is no language in
that monsterous animal of the Communications Act of 1933 that empowers the
government to affect what you do on and "only on" your property with radio
signals. Other laws would apply to something obtained illegally and are not
the topic of discussion here.

Jack