The Rights of Speaker or the Rights of Listener?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29236

Jammers are illegal. Faraday cages aren't. Nuff said?

A good summation on today's laws. I wonder though if the owner of a building that happens to be a Faraday cage has a legal obligation to keep a cell repeater ON? If a single event has an audience paying to hear that event, can the cell repeater inside the Faraday cage be legally turned OFF during the event?

The terms "rogue gunman" and "911 call" come to mind.

Good point to discuss. I don't believe that there is a legal obligation by the public to call in the case of a rogue gunman or an emergency 911 situation. So if there's no obligation to make this call into or out of this Faraday cage, I don't believe there is an obligation to provide this phone access.

"Not provide" and "prevent" are not the same, however.

To highlight my point here, let me set up a hypothetical scenario. A new concert hall is built like the Walt Disney hall in Los Angeles. This steel skin building makes an ideal Faraday cage around the whole building. Part of the planned design of making this building a Faraday cage is that wireless microphones can be casually used inside the building without the risk of piracy of a performance. While most days the hall does have a performance, performance time does not occupy all hours of a day. Can the owners of this new hall install a cell phone repeater inside the building that can be turned OFF during performances? If they cannot turn a repeater OFF but must provide cell phone access for emergencies, who if anyone is liable for providing the pirates a signal path?

I can see advantages and disadvantages on both sides of this coin. There really is no single right answer here. I know that there are established laws that almost cover these conditions and that the law is always lagging behind the times.

Good example and points all.

This could indeed (and maybe should) be an extended discussion.

That's a strawman.

The facility will have considered this and will have it's own wired phone and the employees would know to go outside to use their cell phones.

When was the last time you went to a theater? Here in the US, theater employees don't know what a wired phone is, and most of them can't find the door.

Theres nothing illegal about a jammer...

if the power output is just so low...

FCC Part 47 rules.

Low power transmitter, just make sure to sit near enough to shut their ***** phone off.

Wrong. Read this thread. Read the law.

It's not Part 47, it is Title 47.

Part of Title 47 C.F.R, Part 15.5 contains a general provision that devices may not cause interference and must accept interference from other sources.

US and International law forbid willful interference on any radio frequency.

I think that you can buy a right to operate on a frequency, but you do not own the frequency and you need to renew that privilege periodically. So, the legal issue is still under international laws and treaties for the country involved.

"If speaker has to look out into an audience and find several people talking on their cell phones. Whether you lower your voice or not. These people talking on there phones are indicating to the speaker what he or she have to say is of no importance to them. So why be there?"

Because their wife got tickets from a friend and they had to go. Thats why.

We've had more than enough of this stuff before.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/35791

Can it stop now? Before I go batty with it?

It seems to me that it is illegal to jam in public buildings or public open areas but I have never seen it in writing. I am not even certain where to look. It all seems to me that there are places where one may want to use these jamming devices. Should we allow jamming in an exam room? How about a concert hall? Or can we demand that no cell phones be allowed in certain areas? We do it for cameras at many events. Can we just jam GPS if we are ducking out and don't want the other half to know where you are?

The question of legality is interesting because I would be of the opinion that my home is my castle and if I want to jam in my home I will. Many public buildings receive poor signals anyway because of concrete and steel design. Many open places receive poor signals. If I own a building and operate a private business but allow the public into it, I am obligated to make sure a cell signal exists, or just not to jam.

As technology expands and we have some sort of communication/internet embedded in our bodies, does that change the issue? The future scares me but I think in a few generations these type of devices will be common. All this from a Luddite who does not even own a cell phone by choice.

Well, try Google. A quick search turned up This Link

Bear in mind that the same laws apply internationally and are part of international treaties approved by each nation.

You could also search CR4. This has been discussed ad nausium.

Thanks. I think it clears up our understanding.

The reason I quit using a cell phone has to do with where I live. I am within 200 feet or so from the US border (on the river). At the same time local calls on landlines are reciprocated with the city of Kingston. When someone calls me on a cell (normally a local call), I am roaming and the signal bounces to a Syracuse NY provider. My bill was running $1.00/min for incoming or outgoing calls and I also was charged long distance. My supplier, Rogers, once reversed calls and rectified the bill at each month. I had been running bills of $2,000.00/mo. They finally said they would no longer reverse the charges and if I did not want to receive them put my cell phone on home only. The phone does me no favors on home, so I just got fed up and quit. I have thought of getting Verizon from Watertown, NY but then I will be charged for roaming in Canada. My dilemma, but a land line works well. We can use internet from USA but I am sure their is some grey law in Canada that will spank me one day.

ad nausium ad nauseam

Oh, no, not again! Thanks :)

Rights issues keep popping up whenever a new technology comes around. Restaurants and some other public places used to ban cigar smoke, but cigarette smoking was ok. This was clearly a violation of a person's right to smoke cigars. Then all smoking was banned and now people complain that their RIGHT to smoke is being violated. When does one person's RIGHT take precedence over another's? This is a very tricky and sensitive issue. I doubt anyone will ever resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.

There is such a thing as good manners and common sense, something that not everyone subscribes to. Manners was something that was taught in school a long time ago. Too bad it is not still taught.

You wrote, "When does one person's RIGHT take precedence over another's?"

Well, for me I am an asthmatic who has now developed severe reactions to cigarette smoke.

For you it might be a matter of sacrificing some pleasure.

For me it it is the difference between life and death.

From my perspective life and death trump personal pleasure. Your opinion may differ.

I am sorry if I seem grumpy on this point, but a girl I was married to died at 39 years of age due to her smoking. We miss her very much. That makes it personal for me.

I know people who are alergic to cigarette smoke who avoid going to public places because of that. If a place allows smoking, the smoker can't know who is alergic in their area. You don't seem grumpy at all. I wish smoking could be banned everywhere. I don't allow smoking in my house, not because of alergy, but because I don't like the smell. I sneeze when someone is smoking near me. I have (had) a friend who smokes incessantly; his wife too. I used to visit them all the time because we were next-door neighbors. When I moved away, I don't see them anymore. The last time I went there, the smell was too much for me. I couldn't breath, and so I never go there anymore. There are a lot of inconsiderate people in the world. I try to keep clear of them. I have very few friends.

I'm surprised that it's illegal to jam. My opinion of property rights is similar to a country's right to control it's airspace. That right goes from the center of the earth out to space. I would think an owner of private property could keep any signal out of his airspace he chose.

Public property is different, and many businesses are considered public, even though the property is privately owned. The signal providers, who are not compensating the property owner for selling signal on his property, expect to have access.

Just another example of business trumping citizen's rights, and using the government to enforce their wishes.

You're mixing personal property rights with a country's sovereignty. A person does not have any right to all of the air space above their property. Depending on the air traffic patterns and the local zoning codes there is a height limitation (above the natural tree line) to a structure an individual can build or loft into the air any object. These rules are so aircraft traffic can safely transit and move commerce without having to negotiate with individual land owners. Similarly the radio frequency electromagnetic spectrum is controlled so that radio frequency traffic is not interferred with rogue (jamming) transmitters. Now just like parks that allow kite flying, there are radio frequencies and power levels that amateur people are permitted to transmit for personal use. There are also licenses that allow transmissions and power levels in other frequencies for commercial use. In general, listening on any frequency is legal. However, if any atypical modulation technique in the broadcast is used (scrambling) is used then listening without a warrant is illegal.

"However, if any atypical modulation technique in the broadcast is used (scrambling) is used then listening without a warrant is illegal."

Nope. The Supreme Court of the US, at least, determined decades ago (and AFAIK, it hasn't been over-turned) that as long as you are only listening to if for your own purposes, and NOT making money off of it, it IS legal. We used to build our own receivers for what became elevator music, since that was, way back when I was a kid, what restaurants and such used as background music.

The case was attempted by the people providing the encoded carrier that it was illegal to receive "their product" without paying for it, when Popular Electronics published a builder's article on making your own receiver. The case failed against general public reception, on the principle that once it is "in the air" anyone can catch it. Subsequently, it was brought again, but specifically against someone who used it AT HIS HOME, when friends were there, but in at least one case, while he was using his home to host a party with FINANCIAL GAIN in the end result (political fund raiser, I think, but I can't remember), and the music was used to enhance ambiance.

That case won, establishing the fine line between NOT FOR FINANCIAL GAIN without paying appropriately, but FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.

And after all, the purpose of the encoding WAS for financial gain, since the encoders expected to be paid for the decoding process. They didn't expect people to be able to crack their coding so easily. AND they thought they could get the courts to agree that they owned anything they created, even after they "cast it to the wind".

But, except in weird places like New York City, it is legal to keep anything you find in the trash, since it was already "cast to the wind". And that, apparently to the US Supreme Court, includes radio and TV signals broadcast over the air.

OTOH, and another thread, possibly, if you send it over a medium you, or another entity own, and by mutual consent of both providers and owners, then you still own the content, and can sell/rent/give it away (yeah, like THAT will ever happen!), much as the Cable companies do today. And there, if someone eavesdrops, it doesn't matter why. It's illegal.

Unless you are the government, of course.

Despite what you think, you, any organization (public or private), or any other private citizen do not own the airwaves.

So, you can't willfully or maliciously cause interference to any RF signal.

However, if you want to build an RF Faraday cage or a Tempest building you are free to do that.

That means actively jamming any signal is verboten.

As a side note, I don't think personal property rights extend to the airspace above it. Otherwise public and private aircraft would have no place to fly without infringing on other people's property and could be made to pay what amounts to a toll, which is ridiculous.

I would add to that "accidentally"...as in if you were unintentionally broadcasting over the spectrum with...say...a tesla coil and screwing up every type of receiver on your block...not that I would know anybody who ever did that...and the FCC most certainly did NOT show up...

_{or maybe they did...just sayin'}

In the case of accidental interference, someone must complain to the FCC and then they will send someone out to investigate.

You would get a notice to the effect that you are generating interference and you need to fix it or things will escalate.

This opens up the hoary question of who actually generates interference. For example, with oscillator interference it is the receiving device that creates the effect whilst receiving and not the transmitting device. A bit like that question "if a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there, would it create a sound?"

I am not sure the source makes much difference to the FCC or the party that is being interfered with.

If someone has equipment that is interfering with someone else the person that is generating the interference is going to have to fix it.

If that person is doing it willfully they may get fined or worse.

Oscillator interference is generated by a TV reciever set when the TV tuner is tuned into the carrier for the RF TV signals. The oscillator interference will be offset from the carrier by a certain amount. But the point is that it is the receiver that creates the problem not the transmitter.

So when you are channel planning (on a national basis) transmitting channels could be grouped in certain patterns -for UHF every 4th channel will be available at a major site and the A/B/C/D blocks are rotated around in a matrix

C - D - C

A - B - A

C - D - C

to try and minimise this and other effects and to maximise the number of channels available. On a cable system other configurations are available.

Either way it is the reciever that causes the problem not the transmitter.

So, what is your point?

If you are radiating interference it doesn't matter if it a transmitter, receiver, or jiggling coins in a polyester bag. If it interferes with another piece of equipment it is called interference.

If you really want the whole story, go to the FCC website and look it up.

Despite what you think, you, any organization (public or private), or any other private citizen do not own the airwaves."

despite what you think, legally, they DO.

Its called "spectrum allocation" and the US Goverment authorizes the FCC to do EXACTLY THAT.

Ownership of a segment of airwaves is given to a company (or whomever) to use for profit or fun. Ownership of right of use.

Let me give you some frequencies that you think aren't "owned by anyone", and go use them, and lets have a good laugh as to how fast a Federal Marshall THROWS YOUR ASS IN JAIL.

UNDER the Jail, actually. Then they will PAVE OVER IT.

1934 International Telecomms (ITU) Treaty

US commerce law

Part 47 CFR FCC

shall I go on?

and on

and on

Signed, Federal Radio Operator.

You don't "own" the spectrum, you are only licensed to use it and that license must be renewed periodically depending on the type. That license can also be revoked, with cause, if the FCC so deems.

Again, it is not Part 47, it is Title 47.

You wrote, "shall I go on?"

I would not, since your remarks are not accurate.

As far as how fast your butt gets thrown into jail, you are also wrong. I know because I personally participated in the largest infraction of radio jamming in the US. The person never went to jail or prison, the FCC worked with the suspect and reduced the fines by something like an order of magnitude, which is typical of how the FCC approaches these infractions.

When I was a kid, living in San Jose and Alameda, CA (densely populated, lots of AM band stations up legally, obviously with the legal rights to the freqs they were on) I designed and built my own AM band transmitters. Found a relatively RF-quiet spoton the AM band, and broadcast to my friends. Never up for long, didn't broadcast music, mostly just pranking my friends and family. But never once did I hear from the FCC, though it was easy without even trying to hear my signal from as much as 20 blocks away. Certainly it had to be over-riding my neighbor's listening habits (I didn't ALWAYS go to an RF-quiet part of the band. Sometimes I broke into their listening deliberately, just to mess with them.) but apparently either the FCC wasn't listening, or the neighbors never complained.

But I'm pretty sure I'd have at least lost my gear if they had. And going to jail seems like a it should have been a possibility.

Someone really needs to complain to law enforcement. The FCC doesn't sit there and monitor all the bands, and when they do, they may do nothing (they have bigger fish to fry).

Jail is unlikely. First offenses may be a fine, but they generally drop some big ones on you at first, then negotiate down from there.

"I personally participated in the largest infraction of radio jamming in the US"

Details! Details!

I believe that there are many casinos that will jamb cell phones, wifi devices etc on the gambling floor.

That's just so you won't be pulled away by a phone call from the business of giving them your money.

Why do you believe that?

My belief comes from comments made by the management of the Casino while I was involved in designing a comms systems (not for use inside the gambling floor.)

I always thought it was for security reasons; the same with personal cameras. A player might be able to cheat using a cell phone.

This was the subtext of my comment. But the issue remains if they are allowed to block in one area, why are you not allowed to do the same in another area.

In the NZ jurisdiction you are allowed to have unlicenced RF transmissions as long as the units are below 500mW. Though you are not permitted to use these to purposefully deny use of the spectrum to licenced users.

A good set of spark plugs can make a large "zone of silence."

"A good set of spark plugs can make a large "zone of silence.""

my Gradfather, an early US radio operator, used to connect the high tension wire from the ignition system to the vehicle body to jam police radar guns.

that and driving about with colored plastic over the headlights gave them fits.

Sharp dV/dts make WONDERFUL broadband RF noise!!

Both the rights of the speaker and the listener must be upheld. Some believe (wrongly) that only their right must be accepted. When two persons with opposing opinions clash, neither will win. That's when laws have to take over. In such a case, compromise has to be worked out that neither favors nor denies the right. It then becomes "no one's right". Still it's a very touchy matter. This parallels the smoking issue. Much has been done to protect the rights of non-smokers because of the mountain of evidence against smoking in public places. Smokers still have the right to smoke, only not in places where non-smokers assemble in public.