wjc@ll-vlsi (Bill Chiarchiaro) (09/03/85)
The Communications Act doesn't say you can't listen to whatever you
want. It does say:
"Section 605 ... No person receiving or assisting in receiving, or transmitting
or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire
or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport,
effect or meaning thereof,...to any person other than the addressee, his agent
or attorney...or in response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or on demand or other lawful authority...and no person not being
entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign
communication by wire or radio and use the same or any information therein
contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled
thereto...This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing
or utilizing the contents of any radio communication, which is transmitted by
any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, air-
craft, vehicles or persons in distress or which is transmitted by an Amateur
Radio station or by a citizens band radio operator."
As long as you don't divulge, the Communications Act does not prohibit
you from listening to anything. Further, the Act only applies to interstate
and foreign communications. Thus, a point-to-point link within one state
is not protected at all by the Act. Nonetheless, anyone with some listening
or operating experience can tell you that radio transmissions don't really
care about political boundaries.
Finally, upon this reading of Section 605, I noticed that the Act doesn't
prohibit a scanner listener from telling his friend that he just heard about
a fire or some other life-threatening situation. After all, those are radio
communications relating to persons in distress.
Bill
N1CPKlauren@rand-unix.ARPA (09/05/85)
Not that I'm necessarily supporting this interpretation, but as I explained earlier the courts have been interpreting the word "benefit" rather broadly--that's the basis for the new restrictions. Also, most point-to-point transmissions are covered by various court interpretatons of the Act into "wiretapping" protection areas. Remember that the Act alone doesn't define the state of the law-- the way the COURTS interpret that act and build up case law does. --Lauren--
ptb@mitre-bedford.ARPA (09/05/85)
>Not that I'm necessarily supporting this interpretation, but as >I explained earlier the courts have been interpreting the word >"benefit" rather broadly--that's the basis for the new restrictions. > >Also, most point-to-point transmissions are covered by various >court interpretatons of the Act into "wiretapping" protection >areas. > >Remember that the Act alone doesn't define the state of the law-- >the way the COURTS interpret that act and build up case law does. Somewhere I have heard that if even a PART OF a transmission goes over the phone lines, then tapping in has been construed as wiretapping. Peter, WA1SNH (ptb@mitre-bedford)
FAC1154%UOFT01.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA (James Apsey) (09/05/85)
What's wrong with prudishness in programs on commercial TV and HBO that are available to so many eyes and minds of the latch-key kids set? Jim, K8JA
prg%mgweed.uucp@brl.ARPA (Phil Gunsul) (09/08/85)
[....] I have found that I am listening to my satellite dish much more than watching it lately. I suggest anyone with a dish get off Galaxy I for a while and listen to Keith Lamonica on Telstar 303 (a couple of degrees East of where Comstar D4 was), transponder 18. The program is a "call in" type and really generates some interesting conversations. He is on each evening from 8:00 P.M. central time until 10, 11 or 12, whenever things die down! On Sunday evenings, he is starting to have video, although I think I like just the call in better. I would like to hear from any other individuals who have been listen to him... If you value your _RIGHT_ to own and operate your own Earth station, I suggest you listen in! Happy dish fishing!! Phil Gunsul -- WB9AAX
stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (10/23/85)
In reply to: (quote) I fear we seem to be helpless at stoping this system from devoring us. President Regean said he was against stoping the red ink if it cut's into the Star Wars project. What's the sense in this madness? Yet another tear shed for our lost liberty. I wish my county loved us as much as we love it. (unquote) Without Starwars you'll be shedding a lot more tears, and they wont be for your lost liberty. I guess you are another American that has succummed to the millions the Russians are spending in this country to stop Starwars, because the Russians know it will work because they are already ahead of us. joe N2XS
stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (10/24/85)
I agree, but remember YOU started the star wars part of this debate. JOE
stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (10/24/85)
Cancel last message, I got the names mixed up. I agree with you, but I counld't sit back and watch the pro communist line go over the net. Joe
KOHNEN.wbst@Xerox.ARPA (10/25/85)
I'm a member of the ham radio dl because I'm a ham and because I enjoy the ham radio related discussions whether they be about problems with solid state rigs, antennas, or dx. I can only speak for myself but i am getting extremely tired of these "Satellite viewing freedoms/Starwars" messages which are being sent to the entire dl. I'm not picking on you in particular, Joe, it's just that I've heard enough. This stuff isn't remotely related to ham radio and it just doesn't belong here. Can't you all call it quits or move to another dl with it? 73, Lou, K2ANC
stephany.WBST@Xerox.ARPA (10/25/85)
NO. I did not start it and I am not going to sit by and watch procommunist propaganda go unanswered over any net no matter what the net is called. Joe