On 29 Jan 2005 01:51:32 -0800, wrote:

'Scuse the silly nit-picking here

Ah!! Something that I can join in with....

but those unlicensed old open-cabinet
induction heat-sealing machines operated around 27 Mhz back when
licensed hams also operated on those freqs. If I recall it right
problem was that 11M was a shared band and us licensed types had no
legal bitch on heat-sealing machine RFI, it was live with it or go play
on some other ham band.

But eventually the FCC lowered the boom on the heat-sealing machines.

The major problem with the old-style heat sealers was the harmonics
which were generated - the fundamental frequency swept upwards as
the plasitic melted and the fifth harmonics fell in the aviation band.

Upon complaint from the FAA backed up by FCC field measurments, the
local FCC Engineer in Charge (now called District Director) has the
legal authority to issue a Cease and Desist Order closing down not
only the machine in question but the entire site until the site was
certified harmonic-free and so verified by an overflight of the
FAA's (notorious) instrumentation plane, usually piloted by a
someone we called - with sufficient reason - "Vertical John". We
always declined to accompany him....

We didn't like to use that authority too often because it would result
in the unemployment of a lot of minimum-wage immigrant employees.

Then they tossed us out of the band and turned it over to the CBers.
Which at the time was (temporarily) another licensed service. Ah, the
webs "they" weave . . !

In reality, it came about when the ITU designated the band 27.12 +/-
160 kHz for "Industrial, Scientific, and Medical" and in came the
heat sealers, diathermy machines, and similar noise generators. That
resulted in 11 meters being turned into an electronic garbage can.
The CBers got it on the basis of "if you can use it for any local
communications through all the garbage, go ahead and do it".

The only reason that any communications can be conducted on that
band now is that all the shielding, bypassing, and grounding
necessary to comply with the harmonic elimination requirement also
keeps the fundamental from being radiated.

A ham for whom I was the "elmer" some 30+ years ago became the test
engineer at the Varian Tube division that manufactures the
wastebasket-sized tubes for ultra high power uses, and Ray swore
that someday he was going to design a test jig that would have all
the harmonic suppression but permit the unlimited field radiation
allowed for ISM devices on 27.12 MHz, thereby solving the "CB
problem" for about one-third of the US.

He never did.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 29 Jan 2005 15:31:01 GMT, N2EY wrote:

OK, how about this one - actually had this discussion with a lawyer
back in the old analog-cordless-phone days(!):

Drug dealer operates out of a house unsuspected by neighbors because the
operation is so well concealed. But the dealer makes a mistake and gets
one of those first-generation no-security cordless phones

And the rest of the question ??

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

On 29 Jan 2005 15:31:01 GMT, N2EY wrote:

OK, how about this one - actually had this discussion with a lawyer
back in the old analog-cordless-phone days(!):

Drug dealer operates out of a house unsuspected by neighbors because the
operation is so well concealed. But the dealer makes a mistake and gets
one of those first-generation no-security cordless phones

And the rest of the question ??

Hit the send key too fast. Sorry.

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

He claimed that listening in on the conversation was the same as wiretapping,
and since there was no warrant for a wiretap, the evidence was all illegally
obtained and none of it could be used.

I said that the radio signals were not legally protected in any way, because
the Communications Act does not authorize the use of the radio spectrum for
illegal purposes. I also said that wiretapping involves connection to the
common carrier's equipment, and the customer-phone company contract specified
privacy of communications, while the radiating cordless phone is customer-owned
and no such privacy is contracted or even implied.

Also, I made the following analogy:

Suppose it is a quiet night in comfortable weather. Everyone in the
neighborhood has their windows wide open. Suppose Neighbor A, on his own
property, overhears Neighbor B, on *her* own property, discussing a drug deal
or other illegal act. Neighbor B doesn't realize how loud she is talking and
how well she can be heard across property lines. Is that evidence admissible?
Or is Neighbor A supposed to plug his ears and shout "lalala I can't hear you"?


My layman's guess is that, today, such an overheard conversation could only be
used to get a warrant.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:02:44 -0700
From: Cmd Buzz Corey
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: The Fed's Anti-Ham Trojan Horse

wrote:


Never mind that BPL turns all of the
house wiring, not just the distribution wiring, into a noise radiator,
even if you're not a subscriber. 73 de Jim, N2EY

What if I don't want BPL signals on my house wiring, which I own, interfering
with radio reception in my house? Can I demand they keep their BPL signals
out of my private wiring?



Well, if I were sufficiently resourceful and beligerant, I'd do one or a
combination of the following: i) move to some place out in the boonies
where the power lines are far away and generate my own electricity. I'm in
a retirement house and they had to bring power lines 700 feet to the house
and 300 feet from my property line to the nearest source and I seriously
looked into purchasing a 10-30 kw diesel generator and giving THEM the
finger. ii) unhook your house from the utility and generate your own
(might not help for RF radiated from the PLs), iii) explore other modes
and frequencies if you get BPL ORM and see if you can live with what is
left in your hobby, or iv) change hobbies (birdwatching, beer, etc).

w4pon

(see quoted material below).

Yeah, I read that snot below (authored by the FCC) and its all part of the
commercialization of ANYthing that can be commercialized. Its all about
money and power. Enron/Anderson/Worldcom/etcscams. Export the jobs to
India/China, degrade human flesh born in the USA, and it doesn't matter
who you vote for, the politicos will listen to the lobbyists not the
citizens. Someday they'll figure out how to tax you for the air you breath
and the sunlight that falls to earth and we use it to see the landscape
and where we are. I read some years ago that some guy in the FCC had the
great thought that someday frequency spectrum will be bought and sold on
the stock market, futures markets, options. Just like flesh on the block
(slavery) years ago.

================================================== ===========

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 wrote:

Date: 28 Jan 2005 10:08:01 -0800
From:
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: The Fed's Anti-Ham Trojan Horse


Jeffrey Herman wrote:
Charles Brabham wrote:

Ham
Radio was dissed by the FCC as not being relevant enough to protect
from BPL
interference.

That's an awfully strong statement -- please provide proof that the
FCC
actually made that proclamation.

From the Report and Order to 04-37, as reported in the ARRL Letter:

BEGIN QUOTE

"We recognize that some radio operations in the bands being used for
Access BPL, such as those of Amateur Radio licensees, may occur at
distances sufficiently close to power lines as to make harmful
interference a possibility,"

"We believe that
those situations can be addressed through interference avoidance
techniques by the Access BPL provider such as frequency band selection,
notching, or judicious device placement."

"In addition, because power lines inherently can radiate significant
noise
emissions as noted by NTIA and ARRL, good engineering practice is to
locate sensitive receiver antennas as far as practicable from power
lines,"

"such noise can often be avoided by carefully
locating their antennas; in many instances an antenna relocation of
only a
relatively short distance can resolve noise interference."

BPL operators would be required to avoid certain bands, such as those
used
for life and safety communications by aeronautical mobile or US Coast
Guard stations. The FCC R&O makes clear, however, that similar rules
will
not apply to the Amateur Service.

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio frequencies warrant the
special protection afforded frequencies reserved for international
aeronautical and maritime safety operations," the Commission said.
"While
we recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist in providing
emergency
communications," the FCC added. It described typical amateur operations
as
"routine communications and hobby activities." (

Although some cases of harmful interference may be possible from BPL
emissions at levels up to Part 15 limits, the FCC said, "we agree with
NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] that
the
benefits of Access BPL service warrant acceptance of a small and
manageable degree of interference risk." The Commission reiterated in
the
R&O its belief that BPL's public benefits "are sufficiently important
and
significant so as to outweigh the limited potential for increased
harmful
interference that may arise."

Further, the new rules spell out the locations of "small geographic
exclusion zones" as well as excluded bands or frequencies--concessions
made primarily at the insistence of the NTIA, which administers radio
spectrum for federal government users--and "coordination areas" where
BPL
operators must "precoordinate" spectrum use. The rules also detail
techniques to measure BPL emissions from system equipment and power
lines.

The FCC said it expects "good faith" on both sides in the event of
interference complaints. While the Commission said it expects BPL
operators to take every interference complaint seriously and to
diagnose
the possible cause of interference quickly, it also suggested that
complainants have responsibilities.

"At the same time, we expect the complainant to have first taken
reasonable steps to confirm that interference, rather than a receiver
system malfunction, is occurring and, to the extent practicable, to
determine that the interference source is located outside the
complainant's premises," the Commission said.

Shutting down a BPL system in response to a valid interference
complaint
"would be a last resort when all other efforts to satisfactorily reduce
interference have failed," the FCC said.

END QUOTE

While the FCC paid lip service to amateur radio's role in public
service communications, they did not see fit to protect the ARS from
BPL interference. Instead, we are supposed to "relocate sensitive
receiving antennas" and have
good faith in the BPL providers. Never mind that BPL turns all of the
house wiring, not just the distribution wiring, into a noise radiator,
even if you're not a subscriber. And never mind that many hams do not
live on large unencumbered properties where antenna location can be
chosen freely.

Basically the message is that the Administration, through its
appointees in the FCC, sees the need for BPL as being more important
than the ARS.

73 de Jim, N2EY


73 de Jim, N2EY

straydog wrote:



On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:02:44 -0700
From: Cmd Buzz Corey
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: The Fed's Anti-Ham Trojan Horse

wrote:


Never mind that BPL turns all of the
house wiring, not just the distribution wiring, into a noise radiator,
even if you're not a subscriber. 73 de Jim, N2EY

What if I don't want BPL signals on my house wiring, which I own,
interfering with radio reception in my house? Can I demand they keep
their BPL signals out of my private wiring?



Well, if I were sufficiently resourceful and beligerant, I'd do one or a
combination of the following: i) move to some place out in the boonies
where the power lines are far away and generate my own electricity. I'm
in a retirement house and they had to bring power lines 700 feet to the
house and 300 feet from my property line to the nearest source and I
seriously looked into purchasing a 10-30 kw diesel generator and giving
THEM the finger. ii) unhook your house from the utility and generate
your own (might not help for RF radiated from the PLs), iii) explore
other modes and frequencies if you get BPL ORM and see if you can live
with what is left in your hobby, or iv) change hobbies (birdwatching,
beer, etc).

w4pon

Well, I know the whole thing is a bit far out, but it is fun to dream of
harrasing the BPL folks.

On 29 Jan 2005 22:20:26 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Taking a WAG, in "the old days" it was not unlawful to intercept and
use as evidence the conversations from the base unit of a cordless
phone - no warrant was necessary. The (Federal) ECPA was amended a
number of years ago to require a warrant for the above, same as for
cellphone conversations.

He claimed that listening in on the conversation was the same as wiretapping,
and since there was no warrant for a wiretap, the evidence was all illegally
obtained and none of it could be used.

That's what the law is today. Before the ECPA was amended, there
was a loophole that didn't cover transmissions from a cordless base
unit, only the handset. There was an actual court case in Nebraska
where a neighbor picked up a drug deal from a cordless phone base
unit, and the court held in that case that there was no violation
and the evidence was admissible.

Then the ECPA was amended to close that loophole.

I said that the radio signals were not legally protected in any way, because
the Communications Act does not authorize the use of the radio spectrum for
illegal purposes.

Not so - the purpose of the ECPA was to limit the power of the
government to use warrentless intercepted telephone or radio
conversations as mandated by the SCOTUS _Cohen_ case that
established the concept of "expectation of privacy" in
communications.

I also said that wiretapping involves connection to the
common carrier's equipment, and the customer-phone company contract specified
privacy of communications, while the radiating cordless phone is customer-owned
and no such privacy is contracted or even implied.

No again. Ther term "wiretapping" is applied to any communication
- aural, wire, or radio. IIRC that term is "street slang" and does
not appear in the ECPA.

Also, I made the following analogy:

Suppose it is a quiet night in comfortable weather. Everyone in the
neighborhood has their windows wide open. Suppose Neighbor A, on his own
property, overhears Neighbor B, on *her* own property, discussing a drug deal
or other illegal act. Neighbor B doesn't realize how loud she is talking and
how well she can be heard across property lines. Is that evidence admissible?

Sure is, to the limit of admissible hearsay.

My layman's guess is that, today, such an overheard conversation
could only be used to get a warrant.

That's because otherwise-inadmissible hearsay is admissible to
establish probable cause but cannot be used at trial.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane