fktsun@violet.waterloo.edu (Frankie Kim-Tak Sun) (05/10/88)
I am interested in receiving an ethnic FM subcarrier service in Toronto. Is there anyone out there who knows how I can add FM subcarrier reception capability to my present FM receivers? I am thinking of allowing either my FM tuner or my boom-box type portable AM/FM radio cassette recorder to get this kind of broadcast. Since I don't really have the technical knowhow to build a kit to do this (although I'm sure it would not be too difficult for elcetronics hobbyists), I'm mostly interested in ready-made products for this particular purpose. And let me mention that the FM subcarrier service that I'd like to hear has posted an ad in a local paper telling people to buy a certain radio for some Cdn. $110 at some authorized dealers. I am positive that the amount asked for is a rip-off. Eager as I may be to hear that service, I am not about to be taken in that easily. This reminds me of another thing. Does anyone have some kind of listing of FM subcarrier services in Toronto? If not, is there anywhere I can acquire such information? I know that the FM Atlas by Bruce Elving tells one that a subcarrier service is carried on a certain frequency, but it does not tell one which. I'm quite sure that if I can receive all the FM subcarrier services, I will find a lot more interesting broadcasts other than the one that I have in mind right now. Any help will be appreciated, either by posting to the net or e-mailing me. Thanks. Frankie Sun fktsun@violet.waterloo.edu
Phillip_M_Dampier@cup.portal.com (05/12/88)
Make sure that it is legal to listen to subcarrier services in Canada. The CRTC may be upset with you otherwise. Here in the USA, unless you are blind, a doctor, or a muzak-loving store, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes listening to sub-carrier signals illegal. Hopefully, a Democratic administration can reverse the Reagan Administration's oppressive behavior.
dan@speedy.wisc.edu (Dan Frank) (05/13/88)
In article <5330@cup.portal.com> Phillip_M_Dampier@cup.portal.com writes: >Here in the USA, unless you are blind, a doctor, or a muzak-loving store, >the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes listening to sub-carrier >signals illegal. > >Hopefully, a Democratic administration can reverse the Reagan Administration's >oppressive behavior. Well, why don't we check our facts before we go blasting away? The main House sponsor of the ECPA was a knee-jerk liberal Democrat with an ADA rating of about 100. The Reagan administration had nothing to do with promoting that bill. And, if we want to discuss oppressive behavior, we could discuss the override of the President's veto of the so-called Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, which you probably think had something to do with restoring civil rights. But, since this is the ham radio newsgroup, I will dispense with further comments. -- Dan, W9NK
mitch@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mitch Collinsworth) (05/13/88)
In article <5330@cup.portal.com> Phillip_M_Dampier@cup.portal.com writes: >Make sure that it is legal to listen to subcarrier services in Canada. The >CRTC may be upset with you otherwise. >Here in the USA, unless you are blind, a doctor, or a muzak-loving store, >the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes listening to sub-carrier >signals illegal. >Hopefully, a Democratic administration can reverse the Reagan Administration's >oppressive behavior. What rock did you just crawl out from under? The Reagan Administration isn't responsible for the ECPA. It was created and pushed by the cellular telephone industry and passed by congress before ever getting to the white house. Granted, Reagan should have vetoed it, but failing to override the foolishness of our elected senators and representatives doesn't make it oppressive behavior on the part of the administration. -Mitch Collinsworth, K2VD mitch@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
mrapple@uop.edu (Nick Sayer) (05/17/88)
In article <5330@cup.portal.com>, Phillip_M_Dampier@cup.portal.com writes: > [...] > Here in the USA, unless you are blind, a doctor, or a muzak-loving store, > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes listening to sub-carrier > signals illegal. I don't think that's true. As far as I know, anyone can listen to anything they want, but according to the secrecy of communications part of the Communications Act of 1934 it IS a crime to divulge the contents or existance of any electronics communications to a third party or make commercial use of same if you are not a party to the communications (unless the communications was transmitted by a broadcaster, amateur, CBer or someone in distress). > Hopefully, a Democratic administration can reverse the Reagan Administration's > oppressive behavior. Hey, leave it behind, ok? This isn't alt.flame. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Sayer | Packet Radio: N6QQQ @ WA6RDH | CMS: SYSOP@STOKTON%STOCKTON uucp: ...!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!uop!mrapple | Fido: 161/31 Disclaimer: You didn't REALLY believe that, did you? cat flames > /dev/null
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/18/88)
> > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes listening to sub-carrier > > signals illegal. > > I don't think that's true. As far as I know, anyone can listen to > anything they want, but according to the secrecy of communications > part of the Communications Act of 1934 it IS a crime to divulge the > contents or existance of any electronics communications... Unfortunately the ECPA is a very different story and much harsher than the 1934 law. Yes, it IS illegal to listen to sub-carrier signals in the US unless you are properly authorized. The ECPA was passed last year, if memory serves. An amazing number of things are illegal under it. I'm amazed that you missed hearing about it; the uproar on the net was deafening. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry
cook@Alliant.COM (Dale C. Cook) (05/19/88)
In article <5738@spool.cs.wisc.edu> dan@cs.wisc.edu (Dan Frank) writes: >In article <5330@cup.portal.com> Phillip_M_Dampier@cup.portal.com writes: >> >>Hopefully, a Democratic administration can reverse the Reagan Administration's >>oppressive behavior. > > Well, why don't we check our facts before we go blasting away? The main >House sponsor of the ECPA was a knee-jerk liberal Democrat with an ADA >rating of about 100. The Reagan administration had nothing to do with >promoting that bill. Don't you just hate it when a raving political discussion breaks out in a legitimate (actually several) hobby-oriented newsgroup? I was hoping that we'd get a few gramatical buff posting about the original posters use of "hopefully" just to round things out. I've no quibbles with a good Reagan vs the evil liberals bash, but there IS a group dedicated specifically to political sniping -- two if you count alt.flames :-) Gentlepeople, please, can we go back to silver speaker wires (rec.audio) or 10 meter propogation theory (ham-radio)? . . . . -- - Dale N1US VOICE: (617) 486-1343 ARPA: cook@alliant.alliant.com SMAIL: 1 Monarch Drive UUCP: ...linus!alliant!cook Littleton, MA 01460
jim@mnetor.UUCP (Jim Stewart) (05/20/88)
In article <1469@uop.edu> mrapple@uop.edu (Nick Sayer) writes: >> Here in the USA, ... >> the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes listening to sub-carrier >> signals illegal. >I don't think that's true. As far as I know, anyone can listen to >anything they want, but... HERE WE GO AGAIN! BTW, that's true in Canada, but not in your "home and native land". -- Jim Stewart, VE3SRJ UUCP: {decvax|allegra|ihnp4|linus|utcsri}!utzoo!mnetor!jim ARPA: mnetor!jim@seismo.css.gov BELL: (416)475-8980 x303
spectre@cisunx.UUCP (Robert Sillett) (05/30/88)
In article <1469@uop.edu> mrapple@uop.edu (Nick Sayer) writes: > >I don't think that's true. As far as I know, anyone can listen to >anything they want, but according to the secrecy of communications >part of the Communications Act of 1934 it IS a crime to divulge the >contents or existance of any electronics communications to a third >party or make commercial use of same if you are not a party to the >communications (unless the communications was transmitted by >a broadcaster, amateur, CBer or someone in distress). > I wish that it were true. The new ECPA act, pushed through Congress by the cellular industry, makes even the act of listening to certain radio broadcasts illegal. You cannot listen to cellular telephone conversations (why Tandy omitted that band on its new scanner). Also, you cannot listen to Ham relay conversations where a private phone is involved. However, it is legal to listen to cordless telephones. There are probably other things you can't listen to, but I can't remember them. Robert L. Sillett, Jr. spectre@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu University of Pittsburgh spectre@pittvms.BITNET "Don't ask me -- I only work here." ...!pitt!unix!spectre -- Robert L. Sillett, Jr. spectre@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu University of Pittsburgh spectre@pittvms.BITNET "Don't ask me -- I only work here." ...!pitt!unix!spectre