TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Cellular Jamming? Think Again.

Re: Cellular Jamming? Think Again.

W Howard (whoward@login2.srv.ualberta.ca)
Sun, 3 Jul 2005 02:56:58 UTC

In article <telecom24.305.8@telecom-digest.org>, mc
<mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

>> Of course they say that. And every once in a while they dust off
>> their announcement that broadcasting more than 5 watts on a CB radio
>> is illegal and subjects the operator to fines and seizure of their
>> equipment too. But they don't actually do it. They're stretched thin
>> already trying to figure out where telecommunications is going so they
>> can stay a little ahead of it, and they just don't bother with
>> "crimes" that do not involve substantial amounts of money.

> You haven't been reading the news on www.arrl.org, have you?

You are right, I hadn't. So I went and did. Seven enforcement
letters over the course of a week is what I found. I could find you
the evidence for seven enforcement letters about every seventy seconds
along any stretch of freeway near any major city.

So my use of "never" was inaccurate; in a tiny fraction of the cases,
somebody from the FCC attempts to enforce the regulations. It's still
such a tiny fraction as to have negligible effect, and I doubt that
the stern warnings about possessing/using cellphone jammers will be
followed up with enough enforcement to make a difference there either.

And I stand by my claim that the govt in general would have at least
more respect if they didn't write laws/regulations that they won't
enforce in any meaningful way.

>>Walt

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: DevilsPGD: "Re: Cellular Jamming? Think Again."
Go to Previous message: shwekhaw: "DO NOT! DO NOT Use Cingular Go Phone"
May be in reply to: Joseph: "Cellular Jamming? Think Again."
Next in thread: DevilsPGD: "Re: Cellular Jamming? Think Again."
TELECOM Digest: Home Page