Talk About Network

Google




Electronic Equipment > Cell Phone Tech > Re: Cell-Phone ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 23 of 48 Topic 491 of 536
Post > Topic >>

Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

by "mark krawczuk" <krawczuk@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sep 6, 2008 at 08:39 PM

hey , they have to catch ya first.. i been jammin cell fones for nearly 2 
years , right in front of the fcc, and they still cant get me ...ha ha


"BruceR" <razrbruce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:46917d95$0$20551$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> > Scott wrote:
>>> Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>> news:1392k4mg1j9k018@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >> What part of
>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand?  The front half or
>>> the back half?
>>>
> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle and 
> that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.  Just like you
can't 
> operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can't violate a seemingly 
> infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to 
> the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even

> beyond what the law requires.
>
> In the USA at least, like it or not, private property owner****p rights
do 
> not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed radio 
> transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell phone 
> jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.
>
> The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the
first 
> offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals. If you 
> don't pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and sell
it 
> to pay them.
> See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html
 or below
for 
> details.
>
> Private property owner****p does not grant the owner the ability to creat
a 
> private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply.  The owner and 
> owner****p of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal 
> codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property 
> rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being
fought 
> in the courts with varying outcomes.
>
> FCC RULE:
> Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with
> Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States
> In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of 
> transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of

> cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the
Federal 
> Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make 
> clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment
is 
> unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to 
> forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.
>
> Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications 
> services to the American public for business and personal
communications. 
> Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest in devices ---  
> called "cellular jammers" or "cell phone jammers" ---  designed to 
> deliberately jam or disrupt wireless communications. Inquiries about the

> use of cellular jammers are often accompanied by comments that the use
of 
> wireless phones in public places is disruptive and annoying. 
> Advertisements for cellular jammers suggest that the devices may be used

> on commuter trains, in theaters, hotels, restaurants and other locations

> the public frequents.
>
> The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules prohibit
the 
> manufacture, im****tation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices 
> within the United States (See Section 302(b) of the Communications Act,
47 
> USC § 302a(b) and Section 2.803(a) of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR §
2.803(a)). 
> In addition, it is unlawful for any person to willfully or maliciously 
> interfere with the radio communications of any station licensed or 
> authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (See Section

> 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC § 333). Further, Section 301 of
the 
> Act, 47 USC § 301, requires persons operating or using radio
transmitters 
> to be licensed or authorized under the Commission's rules.
>
> Parties violating the provisions of the Communications Act and/or FCC 
> rules mentioned above may be subject to the penalties set forth in 47
USC 
> §§ 501-510. Monetary forfeitures for a first offense can be as much as 
> $11,000 a day for each violation and could subject the offender to 
> criminal prosecution. Equipment may also be seized by the United States 
> Marshals and forfeited to the U.S. Government.
>
> For additional information, contact Brian Butler, Spectrum Enforcement 
> Division, Enforcement Bureau, at (202) 418-1160 or brian.butler@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> By the Enforcement Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and 
> Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
>
>
>
 




 48 Posts in Topic:
Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-07 11:54:47 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-07 17:40:44 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Notan <notan@[EMAIL PR  2007-07-07 19:30:32 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-07 20:54:14 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Notan <notan@[EMAIL PR  2007-07-07 20:48:46 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 07:13:09 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-08 08:59:56 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 16:01:20 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-08 16:13:57 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 17:03:21 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BruceR" <ra  2007-07-08 14:13:10 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 19:40:30 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BruceR" <ra  2007-07-08 14:57:36 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 21:57:29 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-08 22:04:30 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-08 23:24:53 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-09 18:26:02 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
®©®@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2007-07-09 09:41:00 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"Prof. Franz Blaha&q  2007-07-09 15:46:52 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BruceR" <ra  2007-07-09 11:38:03 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-09 18:41:17 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Todd Allcock <elecconn  2007-07-19 10:41:38 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"mark krawczuk"  2008-09-06 20:39:45 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"Richard B. Gilbert&  2008-09-06 08:28:58 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"Peter Pan" <  2008-09-06 12:37:43 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
David Lesher <wb8foz@[  2008-09-06 18:20:09 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-19 10:10:40 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Russell Patterson <me@  2007-07-19 10:50:50 
Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"mark krawczuk"  2008-09-06 20:37:30 
Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-18 22:15:29 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Kurt <labolide@[EMAIL   2007-07-18 19:39:31 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-18 20:09:48 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-18 22:31:59 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-18 21:09:39 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Notan <notan@[EMAIL PR  2007-07-18 22:14:01 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"BC" <billch  2007-07-18 21:40:49 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Scott <how.do@[EMAIL P  2007-07-20 10:21:40 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Andreas Wenzel <awspam  2007-07-19 19:20:39 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Simon Templar <usenet@  2007-07-21 20:42:42 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Jer <gdunn@[EMAIL PROT  2007-07-18 22:07:17 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Bert Hyman <bert@[EMAI  2007-07-19 12:47:59 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Russell Patterson <me@  2007-07-19 09:33:25 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-19 10:00:20 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"GeekBoy" <a  2007-07-20 13:44:05 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Straydog <asd@[EMAIL P  2007-07-19 10:05:41 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Bert Hyman <bert@[EMAI  2007-07-19 14:08:48 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
"prc2u1" <pr  2007-07-19 16:00:29 
Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
Russell Patterson <me@  2007-07-19 12:08:02 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Mon Jan 5 18:15:57 PST 2009.