owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
> >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 11:04:33 1998
> Received: from x-3.nts-online.net (x-3.nts-online.net
> [205.231.176.13])
> by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA00160;
> Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:04:25 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from bryan (dialup-lbb-04.nts-online.net [205.231.176.104])
> by x-3.nts-online.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07014; Tue, 10 Feb
> 1998 11:06:04 -0600
> Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980210091005.00907280@prodistributors.com>
> X-Sender: bryan@prodistributors.com
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:10:05 -0600
> To: RFI@contesting.com, dx@ve7tcp.ampr.org, towertalk@contesting.com,
> cq-contest@contesting.com, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> From: Bryan <bryan@prodistributors.com>
> Subject: Local police and RFI problems
> Cc: ham-law@altlaw.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Our local newspaper has just carried a story about
> the police charging a local CB operator with criminal
> mischief because he was causing RFI to a neighbor's computer
> modem.
>
> I talked with some of the folks that have been involved
> in this matter and it seems that the cb operator is getting
> into various consumer electronic units in the neighborhood.
> The neighbors have complained to the police who then checked
> with the city attorney's office. I was given the report that
> an assistant in the city attorney's office has authorized the
> arrest of the cb operator on charges of criminal mischief. The
> police had then made an attempt to arrest the cb operator but
> he refused to give the police access to his home. One of the
> people that I talked with said that the city attorney planned
> to pursue charges against the cb'er on the basis of the new
> law PENDING in Congress that would give local authorities some
> degree of legal control over interference caused by CB operators.
>
> It seems that a major factor involved in this situation is
> that the cb operator uses a profanity which is being heard on the
> various electronic units around the neighborhood.
>
> It is my understanding that the Communications Act of 1934
> that set up the FCC also gave the FCC the EXCLUSIVE rights to deal
> with cases such as this one and the city has no authority legally to
> get involved in this problem. I do not condone in any way the CB'ers
> use of profanity, but most law enforcement people don't know the
> difference in a amateur radio operator and a un-licensed CB operator.
> I think the city could set a dangerous example if it starts to charge
> and arrest people in RFI cases when this may be an area that is
> totally
> outside their jurisdiction.
>
> Comments, input, or suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Bryan Edwards W5KFT
> Lubbock, Texas
--
Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
|