owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
> >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 13:54:48 1998
> Received: from dns1.cybertime.net (www.cybertime.net [207.155.11.64])
> by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA04047
> for <RFI@contesting.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:54:41 -0500
> (EST)
> Received: from [207.155.11.192] by dns1.cybertime.net (NTMail 3.02.13)
> with ESMTP id pa160903 for <RFI@contesting.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998
> 10:57:21 -0800
> From: "J. Bradshaw" <ac6tk@cybertime.net>
> To: <bryan@prodistributors.com>
> Cc: <RFI@contesting.com>, <dx@ve7tcp.ampr.org>,
> <towertalk@contesting.com>,
> <cq-contest@contesting.com>, <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>,
> <ham-law@altlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: Local police and RFI problems
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:52:39 -0800
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Priority: 3
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-Id: <18572159310856@cybertime.net>
>
> Bryan,
>
> > 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...
> >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.
>
> This is a rather disturbing trend. Radio is considered to give
> certain
> tactical advantage to criminals (and civilians) so has been a target
> law
> enforcement types. Out here, RACES or other volunteer government
> participation is encouraged so that we as hams might be perceived as
> "good
> guys". The only difficulty with that comes from those who are so
> "privileged" as to beat down the rest of ham radio for "good guy"
> points.
>
> Yes, the FCC is the responsible agency who has jurisdiction over radio
>
> matters in the United States and has reserved jurisdiction over the
> states,
> because radio signals don't hold to political borders. However, in
> the Los
> Angeles area we have seen little enforcement because The FCC has had
> some
> embarrassing setbacks with cases here.
>
> Recently a state court case over a local repeater pitted a bunch of
> "newbies" and fresh CB converts against a veteran ham control
> operator/owner. In a hail of dis-information and mis-interpretation
> of the
> FCC laws, it was determined that since the "control operator" of the
> repeater was one who had "physical control" of the repeater, and since
>
> possession was 9/10 etc., etc., then the "new repeater committee" who
> had
> changed the lock on the vault, the ID'er and posted guards at the site
> must
> be the "control operators". Further, the court decided that it was a
> state
> court matter to decide owner/control operator status in cases of
> dispute.
> Now the "New Committee" could proceed to jack up the power and the
> antenna
> and talk to Mexico.
>
> Anyone with any practical and theoretical technical experience, knows
> that
> audio devices become receivers most often due to compromises in
> engineering. It took 5 turns of the phone line on a torroid to allow
> me to
> operate on 80m with a tuner and still be connected to my ISP. This
> simple
> $1 fix for a worst case scenario might be beyond someone not qualified
> by
> our stringent technical standards. Heck many people don't even
> understand
> the "funny noises" on their cordless phone, or what the "channel"
> button is
> for, but the neighbor 2 doors down has the same problem! So we are
> left
> with trying to convince those without technical justification and the
> determination of a hammer, not to strike.
>
> I bet a lot of people who questioned the technical merit of executing
> the
> Jews, were killed by those who wondered the same thing but kept their
> mouths shut. A lot more were killed for just riding the train to the
> end
> of the line.
--
Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
|