n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org (Dave Marthouse N2AAM) (03/31/91)
I just downloaded the following off of the fcc echo on my local fidonet bbs. All amateurs, swls, and scanner listeners should take note of the message below. It may be a threat to scanner listening as we know it. this should be watched closely. Message #21 Date: 28 Mar 91 22:39:28 From: David Stark on 13/13, Backbone Coll of Mid Atlantic, Bensalem PA To: All Subj: FCC May Ban Police/Fire/Medical Scanning * Forwarded from "WNY_SCAN" * Originally from Phillip Dampier * Originally dated 28 Mar 91 14:58:00 Note this little outrage I just received off the wires: In a surprise move, the Federal Communications Commission has opened a formal inquiry into the feasibility of banning scanner manufacturers from selling scanners that can receive police, medical emergency, and fire frequencies. Citing interference in official public safety operations by scanner wielding members of the public, all five FCC commissioners have unanimously approved proposals that would make it illegal to monitor any frequencies which contain public safety transmissions. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FCC has required scanner manufacturers to show due cause why they could not manufacture receivers that would eliminate all public safety frequency allocations. Many scanner manufacturers are expected to state that the costs of modifying existing radio designs would be prohibitively expensive to the consumer. The FCC noted that state and local laws which already ban mobile scanner monitoring are just the first step aimed at protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens as well as public safety officials. The Bush Administration has indicated it would support the introduction of new laws making it a federal offense for any citizen to monitor public safety frequencies unless they hold a special license certifying their need to monitor such frequencies. The new law could be a part of the Bush Administration anti-crime legislative package to be introduced during this session of Congress. Analysts say the move has been brought about in part because of high publicity cases of illicit drug operations employing fulltime staffs to monitor law enforcement frequencies to give them advance warning of impending police action. Any legislation is likely to be introduced and supported primarily by the Republican party. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and Albert Gore, Jr. (D-TN) have asked the FCC for clarification of its proposed rulemaking. Both are concerned about possible first amendment violations of citizens prevented from monitoring publicly funded transmissions. Gore added that such restrictive laws are counter productive, noting that many Neighborhood Watch programs based in his home state of Tennessee utilize inexpensive scanner radios to monitor neighborhood police activity. Manufacturers are required to respond by June 7th. The FCC is expected to make a quick decision on the matter in time to work with Congress to introduce the necessary legislation during the summer. =============================================== Any comments from the Commission on this foolishness? Are ham operators going to be exempt? Has the Commission lost its collective mind? How are they going to enforce listening laws like this, with hundreds of thousands of scanners already in the hands of the general public, when they can't adequately enforce the existing laws regarding licensed transmitters? Who is going to pay for this farce? I also note that this supposed release has no NPRM or NOI number. Is there one, or is the FCC going to violate the Administrative Procedures Act and its own policies (again) and just do what it thinks it can get away with? --- FD 1.99c * Origin: NF2G Online - Greece, NY (1:260/218) Dave Marthouse n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org kb2ear!n2aam@princeton.EDU kb2ear!n2aam@rutgers.EDU fido: Dave Marthouse 1:107/323 Packet: n2aam @ w2emu-4.nj.usa.na
acmnews@zeus.unomaha.edu (Paul W. Schleck KD3FU) (04/01/91)
In article <3@kb2ear.ampr.org>, n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org (Dave Marthouse N2AAM) writes: > I just downloaded the following off of the fcc echo on my local fidonet > bbs. All amateurs, swls, and scanner listeners should take note of the > message below. It may be a threat to scanner listening as we know it. > this should be watched closely. > > > > > > Message #21 > Date: 28 Mar 91 22:39:28 > From: David Stark on 13/13, Backbone Coll of Mid Atlantic, Bensalem PA > To: All > Subj: FCC May Ban Police/Fire/Medical Scanning > > * Forwarded from "WNY_SCAN" > * Originally from Phillip Dampier > * Originally dated 28 Mar 91 14:58:00 > > Note this little outrage I just received off the wires: > > > > In a surprise move, the Federal Communications Commission has opened a > formal inquiry into the feasibility of banning scanner manufacturers > from selling scanners that can receive police, medical emergency, and > fire frequencies. Citing interference in official public safety > operations by scanner wielding members of the public, all five FCC > commissioners have unanimously approved proposals that would make it > illegal to monitor any frequencies which contain public safety > transmissions. > etc., etc. If you are as outraged as I am, do one of the following: 1. Get in touch with the White House: Call (202) 456-1414 OR send a telegram to the White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC 2. Write your congressman at: Your Congressman House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 3. Write the ARRL at: 225 Main Street Newington, CT 06111 or flood them with E-mail at: 2155052@mcimail.com (this was most effective in convincing the league to drop the idea of appealing the no-code decision) I would like some more substantiation (i.e. FCC docket or NPRM numbers) but even in rumor form it sounds VERY unsettling. I think as most of our rights and national resources are crumbling under this foolish jingoistic drug war, it is no surprise that ham radio could be another of its casualties. 73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (04/01/91)
The FCC is "investigating scanners" all right, but for the purpose of possibly *exempting* licensed hams from *local* laws that ban scanners in cars. Or so the ARRL reports. I don't think the FCC has the authority, under the Communications Act, to ban any form of *reception*. And when the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1986 to ban cellular phone eavesdropping and the like, FCC officials expressed doubts that it was technically feasible, and declined to take on the job of enforcing it. If it's for real, there will be a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and a formal comment period. Let's CONFIRM OUR FACTS before sending any letters to Washington. False rumors are very expensive for us, the taxpayers. The FCC still receives thousands of letters per year about a rumored proposal to ban religious broadcasting -- there never was any such proposal, but "concerned citizens" keep spreading the word. You and I have to pay the cost of looking at the letters, hauling them out to the dump, etc. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
price@marlin.NOSC.MIL (James N. Price) (04/02/91)
There are quite a few countries that ban reception of police and fire frequencies. One I know of for sure is Austria. The way it's policed is that a rep. from the "Austrian FCC" visits each and every ham every so often, like every couple of years, and checks over his/her equipment to make sure it's the same as the list kept by the govt. Any new equipment that isn't on the list had better have been bought in Austria and have been reported to the govt. Obviously the U.S. won't afford such a heavy-handed policy. But what it does drive us to eventually (in the limit, so to speak) is that hams and other "radio enthusiasts" will have only FCC type- approved equipment that can receive/transmit only where one is allowed to receive/transmit. Lotsa strange things get lumped in with "crime prevention," don't they? --Jim, K6ZH
skipsand@crash.cts.com (Skip Sanders) (04/02/91)
Ref: FCC "can't regulate recievers" idea... The FCC is charged with enforcing international treaties on radio, and there just happens to be one such treaty requiring signatories to prohibit their citizens from monitoring "utility" (that is, non-broadcast) radio stations of any type... so yes, FCC COULD (if the CongressCrooks weren't against it) regulate to prohibit scanners of all types, other than weather recievers... fun, no?
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (04/02/91)
In article <8337@crash.cts.com> skipsand@crash.cts.com (Skip Sanders) writes: >Ref: FCC "can't regulate recievers" idea... >The FCC is charged with enforcing international treaties on radio, and there >just happens to be one such treaty requiring signatories to prohibit their >citizens from monitoring "utility" (that is, non-broadcast) radio stations >of any type... so yes, FCC COULD (if the CongressCrooks weren't against it) >regulate to prohibit scanners of all types, other than weather recievers... >fun, no? I never heard of that treaty. What is it called and when was it signed? And why would the United States sign such a thing? -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------