Cellular Frequencies
Bruce Tindall
In article <rdippold.714754071@cancun>, rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>Occasionally it [law against monitoring cellular phone conversations]
>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
Virginia. Governor Wilder vs. Senator Robb.
Or is there a similar case in Minn. too?
--
Bruce Tindall, Core Testing Manager, SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC 27513
Ron Dippold
>In article <rdippold.714754071@cancun>, rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Occasionally it [law against monitoring cellular phone conversations]
>>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>Virginia. Governor Wilder vs. Senator Robb.
>Or is there a similar case in Minn. too?
I'm pretty sure there's a more recent case than Virginia's.
--
Kitchen activity is highlighted. Butter up a friend.
Ron Dippold
>In article <rdippold.714754071@cancun>, rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Occasionally it [law against monitoring cellular phone conversations]
>>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>Virginia. Governor Wilder vs. Senator Robb.
>Or is there a similar case in Minn. too?
Ah, here we go, found the article:
From: br...@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht)
|Here in Minnesota, there's been a political scandal over the
|dissemination of a tape recording of a cellular telephone
|conversation. The person who was recorded was someone (I believe a
|lawyer or lobbiest) who was hoping to get a job from the state
|administration, the person recording it was a state department of
|transportation (DOT) employee (who recorded it at home), and it was
|passed around the DOT. Eventually, it got into the hands of the man
|who had been the Republican candidate for Governor, Jon Grundseth, who
|stepped down during the middle of the race due to allegations of
|affairs, possible molestation of minors, and other indications of
|moral turpitude. Grundseth is still rather upset with the current
|Governor, Arne Carlson, who became the Republican candidate when
|Grundseth resigned (mostly because he claims Carlson torpedoed his
|campaign by spreading some of the aforementioned allegations), and
|sent copies of this taped conversation to the news media.
|
|Unfortunately for Grundseth, the major repercussion seem to have
|fallen upon him and the man who taped the conversation in the first
|place. There was a major witchhunt for a couple of days to determine
|if the DOT had been monitoring conversations because several people
|from the DOT had been trying to give copies of it away to the media
|and some politicians. That died down when they found out that it was
|done by a DOT technician at home. There's been some thought to
|prosecuting Grundseth for sending copies all over the place, but I
|don't think there have been any formal charges yet.
--
Nighttime sharpens, heightens each sensation. Darkness stirs and wakes
imagination. Silently the senses abandon their defenses.
mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com
>(cross posting to alt.folklore.urban) Although the subject of pi==3.0
>has been beat to death in a.f.u, I don't recall whether or not the
>subject of the legality of listening to cellular phone conversations
>has been discussed. That was the original subject of this posting.
It is illegal according to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but
it is unenforcable. The ECPA is poorly written, it has many areas that are
ambiguous.
ObFact: It is now illegal to tune your TV to receive UHF channels 70-83.
-Mike
David Ternes
>In article <rdippold.714754071@cancun>, rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Occasionally it [law against monitoring cellular phone conversations]
>>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>
>Virginia. Governor Wilder vs. Senator Robb.
>Or is there a similar case in Minn. too?
Yes.
An aide to the now Minnesota Governor Carlson had made a tape recording
and passed out several copies. I am lacking in details but it made the
news last month.
E. David J. Ternes dte...@udev.cdc.com
Goal: To live either in obscurity or in competance.
Caroline E. Bryan
>pito...@mostaccioli.cis.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pitonyak) writes:
>
>>>PS *I* think it's a stupid law too, but that doesn't make it any less
>>>the law right now. Remember that Bill Clinton's legislature passed a
>>>law declaring that the value of pi was 3.0 too. Politicians don't seem
>>>to understand the difference between physical law and government law.
>
>>No, Wait! Bill Clinton is from Arkansas? Was this not passed in
>>Nebraska?
Bill Clinton's legislature didn't secede from the Union at the beginning of
the Civil War, either -- both the pi incident and the secession occurred
before Bill Clinton was born, regardless of which state it was.
Carrie c...@rechenau.unify.com x6244 ------------------------------+
| "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then there will be |
| peace." -- Anon. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark Eckenwiler
>dbus...@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>>(cross posting to alt.folklore.urban) Although the subject of pi==3.0
>>has been beat to death in a.f.u, I don't recall whether or not the
>>subject of the legality of listening to cellular phone conversations
>>has been discussed. That was the original subject of this posting.
>
>Illegal, illegal, illegal... (Assuming it's not your own conversation,
>of course) and just as unenforcable as laws against sodomy. There are
>actually newsletters for those who like to listen to cellular phone
>calls (for "informational purposes only" of course). Just another
>stupid government law with little actual use, but which allows
>cellular phone sellers to tell potential customers that there's a
>level of protection there that doesn't really exist.
FYI, the statutes in question, known collectively as "Title III", are
found at 18 U.S. Code secs. 2510 et seq.
> Occasionally it
>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>such a conversation.
Doug Wilder of Virginia.
--
Morally and artistically, Henry Miller had MORE right to free speech than
Walt Disney and [Father] Coughlin because Miller was an honest man whereas
Disney and Coughlin were liars. - Ed Nilges
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
gary l. schroeder
>(cross posting to alt.folklore.urban) Although the subject of pi==3.0
>has been beat to death in a.f.u, I don't recall whether or not the
>subject of the legality of listening to cellular phone conversations
>has been discussed. That was the original subject of this posting.
>
>Comments, afu'ers?
Interestingly enough, I just heard a bit about this on TV last week
(Good Morning America, of all places). A communications "expert" told
Joan Lunden that it was illegal to intercept conversations taking place
over traditional "corded" phones and cellular phones, but that there are
currently no laws against recieving converstaions broadcast by home
cordless telephones.
Joan spent most of the time trying to figure out what the difference
between a cellular phone and a cordless phone was. In the process she
got the guy to agree to concepts of cellular and cordless phone
communication that weren't true because the expert realized that he
wasn't getting through her and that it was easier to simply agree than
to try and explain it to her again, potentially causing her greater
embarassment.
"So....it's illegal to recieve cordless phone transmissions because
they're sent over such long distances from cell to cell, right?"
"Uh, yeah...right, Joan."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Schroeder | Warning: prolonged exposure to this
schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov | .sig may cause retinal damage and
Brookhaven National Laboratory | blistering skin rashes.
Keith Dickinson
>dbus...@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>>(cross posting to alt.folklore.urban) Although the subject of pi==3.0
>>has been beat to death in a.f.u, I don't recall whether or not the
>>subject of the legality of listening to cellular phone conversations
>>has been discussed. That was the original subject of this posting.
>
>of course) and just as unenforcable as laws against sodomy. There are
>actually newsletters for those who like to listen to cellular phone
>calls (for "informational purposes only" of course).
Actualy I beg to differe. There was a very public trial of a drug runner
here in Florida where the Defendant (read as Convict now) claimed that
the Feds had illeagaly tapped his cellular phone. The courts not only slammed
him so hard his cellular may pass in another year or so, but has condoned the
Southern Bell Mobility activity of recording ALL cell conversations for use
by law enforcement types need them. The basis for the rooling being that
Cellular is like CB or Ship-to-Shore. This is an open broadcast on public
airwaves and thus there was no reason for them to assume that it would be
considdered "private".
>Just another
>stupid government law with little actual use, but which allows
>cellular phone sellers to tell potential customers that there's a
>level of protection there that doesn't really exist. Occasionally it
>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>such a conversation.
Someone being told that would have a nice false-advertising suit if they could
get it on video or in writing.
L8r G8r
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The content of this message | "He's a special effects man! His whole
|probably has no relation to | life is one big special effect!"
|either my employer, my co- | kei...@timeplex.com uunet!tix!keithd
|workers or reality in general! | Timeplex Customer Support (813) 530-9475
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Eckenwiler
>
>Actualy I beg to differe. There was a very public trial of a drug runner
>here in Florida where the Defendant (read as Convict now) claimed that
>the Feds had illeagaly tapped his cellular phone. The courts not only slammed
>him so hard his cellular may pass in another year or so, but has condoned the
>Southern Bell Mobility activity of recording ALL cell conversations for use
>by law enforcement types need them. The basis for the rooling being that
>Cellular is like CB or Ship-to-Shore. This is an open broadcast on public
>airwaves and thus there was no reason for them to assume that it would be
>considdered "private".
Wrong.
Once again, try looking at sections 2510 et seq. of Title 18, United
States Code. Specifically, try 2510(1) [exempting cordless phone
portion of transmission], 2511(1) [the express prohibition], and
2511(2)(g)(ii) [exempting CB and ship-to-shore].
Followups directed to misc.legal.
David Esan
>dbus...@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>level of protection there that doesn't really exist. Occasionally it
>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
Virginia
Used by Senator Charles Robb in his on going fight with Govenor Douglas
Wilder to see which one can be more stupid.
>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>such a conversation.
>--
>Why don't "minimalists" find a shorter name for themselves?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> David Esan d...@moscom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
>
>> Occasionally it
>>gets used as a political tool, as in the case in Minnesota (?) where a
>>candidate for governor is in trouble for possessing a recording of
>>such a conversation.
>
>Doug Wilder of Virginia.
Keep trying, you might accidentally get the right story! :-)
Actually, VA Senator Chuck Robb's campaign staff came into possession of
a tape of a Cell Phone conversation involving VA Governor Doug Wilder.
It is VA Senator Chuck Robb, and his staff that are being investigated.
From Washington, D.C., this is: Chuck Harris reporting...
Chuck Harris - WA3UQV
Johnathan Vail
In article <1992Aug26....@tigger.jvnc.net> kei...@bigguy.timeplex.com (Keith Dickinson) writes:
>Illegal, illegal, illegal... (Assuming it's not your own conversation,
>of course) and just as unenforcable as laws against sodomy. There are
>actually newsletters for those who like to listen to cellular phone
>calls (for "informational purposes only" of course).
Actualy I beg to differe. There was a very public trial of a drug runner
here in Florida where the Defendant (read as Convict now) claimed that
the Feds had illeagaly tapped his cellular phone. The courts not only slammed
him so hard his cellular may pass in another year or so, but has condoned the
Southern Bell Mobility activity of recording ALL cell conversations for use
by law enforcement types need them. The basis for the rooling being that
Cellular is like CB or Ship-to-Shore. This is an open broadcast on public
airwaves and thus there was no reason for them to assume that it would be
considdered "private".
Reasonable people may argue this way but still the law makes it
illegal. Bad spelling aside you are either wrong or missing some
facts of the case. Are you sure it was cellular?
jv
"theobromine: a compound which, contrary to it's name,
contains neither bromine nor God" -- David Throop
_____
| | Johnathan Vail va...@tegra.com (508) 663-7435
|Tegra| j...@n1dxg.ampr.org N1...@448.625-(WorldNet)
----- MEMBER: League for Programming Freedom (lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu)
Dave Alexander
>
>
> Interestingly enough, I just heard a bit about this on TV last week
> (Good Morning America, of all places). A communications "expert" told
> Joan Lunden that it was illegal to intercept conversations taking place
> over traditional "corded" phones and cellular phones, but that there are
> currently no laws against recieving converstaions broadcast by home
> cordless telephones.
>
Actually the truth is that it is illegal for *law enforcement agents* to tap
a corded phone without a warrant and *use the evidence in court,* but it is
legal for them to listen in on the airwaves to a cordless phone signal and
use the evidence in court.
-- Alex --
mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com
>mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>> ObFact: It is now illegal to tune your TV to receive UHF channels 70-83.
>
What used to be UHF channels 70-83 are no longer assigned to broadcast TV,
they've been reassigned to cellular telephones. See previous discussion on
listening in to cellular phones. Newer TV sets can only receive broadcast TV
channels up to Ch. 69 and no further.
(this is a small example of the lack of thought in the ECPA - assign cellular
telephone service to a frequency that nearly every Amercian home has a receiver
for, then 'solve' the potential privacy problem by making it illegal to listen
in)
BTW, it is legal to listen in on *cordless* phones via radio. Guess which
industry had the stronger lobby?
-Mike
Keith Dickinson
>Reasonable people may argue this way but still the law makes it
>illegal. Bad spelling aside you are either wrong or missing some
>facts of the case. Are you sure it was cellular?
Posative. Of course this was several years ago so it _could_ have been
before the law was passed... But at that time I remember what a big fuss
was made over the fact.
L8r G8r
Keith
Geoff Miller
In article <1992Aug27.0...@engage.pko.dec.com> mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>What used to be UHF channels 70-83 are no longer assigned to broadcast TV,
>they've been reassigned to cellular telephones. See previous discussion on
>listening in to cellular phones. Newer TV sets can only receive broadcast TV
>channels up to Ch. 69 and no further.
Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
"There is a suppressed innate sense within the Cartesian,
tight-butt, honky caucasoid, which manifests itself in the guise
of a funky, dreadlock, boogeying mo-fo. This paradox is the
inherent conundrum of white society."
Charles Darwin
_The Origin of Species_
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Joel B Levin
|Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
|beyond 60 in the first place.
Youth speaks. All tvs with uhf went from 14 to 83 (probably any tv
that has an old click-tuner for uhf does that).
| And I know for a fact that I've never
|heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
In my local area are:
Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
Channel 60 (Independent, Merrimack, NH)
Channel 66 (Independent (home shopping), Lawrence*, MA)
Channel 68 (Monitor channel [for now], Boston)
/JBL
*Or Framingham, I forget
=
Nets: le...@bbn.com | "GO TO JAIL. Go directly to jail. Do not pass
POTS: (617)873-3463 | Go. Do not collect $200."
N1MNF | -- Parker Brothers
Brian Kantor
>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>beyond 60 in the first place.
KTTV Channel 69 here in San Diego might take issue with you.
Used to be that the dial went up to 83. But that's smell-phone land now.
"Sixty-Nine is Divine"....
- Brian
22501-sohl
>
>In article <1992Aug27.0...@engage.pko.dec.com> mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>>What used to be UHF channels 70-83 are no longer assigned to broadcast TV,
>>they've been reassigned to cellular telephones. See previous discussion on
>>listening in to cellular phones. Newer TV sets can only receive broadcast TV
>>channels up to Ch. 69 and no further.
>
>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
>Geoff
Well Geoff, your memory just doesn't go back far enough then as what was
said about UHF channels previously going to channel 83 is absolutely correct.
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet wh...@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com
]In article <1992Aug27.0...@engage.pko.dec.com> mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
]
]>What used to be UHF channels 70-83 are no longer assigned to broadcast TV,
]>they've been reassigned to cellular telephones. See previous discussion on
]>listening in to cellular phones. Newer TV sets can only receive broadcast TV
]>channels up to Ch. 69 and no further.
]
]Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
]beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
]heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
The old TV I have at home (circa 1970) goes up to 83, and we here (Boston
area) have UHF channel 68 (though it is something useless like Home Shopping
Network), as well as channel 56. I think I can pick up something around
62 as well.
-Mike
The Myth
>|Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>|beyond 60 in the first place.
>
Well, some new tv's will recieve UHF up to channel 83. I bought about 4
years ago, a protable, black and white (yes, they're still made) 4" TV
set that has a slide tuner similar to the dials on portable radios that
can receive up to channel 83. So when did these TV's become illegal and
when can I expect the SS to come knocking on my door?
Mcirvin
>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
[in Nigel Tufnel voice] My TV goes up to 69.
In Boston, WQTV (the Monitor Channel, now dying a slow death in
the midst of the Christian Science church's financial troubles)
is UHF channel 68. That's the highest I've seen.
--
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
JOSEPH T CHEW
>>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
In days of old when viewers were bold
And cellular wasn't invented,
The UHF tuners, 'fore FCC pruners,
Reached 83, as intended.
The channels were numerous and old TVs dubious
As frequency headed toward microwave,
So the really high numbers, performance-encumbered,
Were considered a technical signal-grave.
In today's crowded spectrum, if you want to protect 'em,
You have to show usage conspic'usly.
So the end up near gigahertz soon got its just deserts
When allocations were looked at metic'lously.
A handbook -- believe me -- called "World Radio TV"
Can be purchased or sought in the library.
It lists all the channels assigned by the panels
So the argument ought to be temp'rary.
More later than sooner, the click-detent tuner
Supplanted the vernier dial fuss.
That might be correlated with the fact that you stated
About the demise of 70-plus.
But I don't recall ever seeing (however fleeting)
Actual stations that went so high.
Even late-at-night preachers and sci-fi-flick features
Had plenty of channels far closer nigh.
They seemed to work better for the marginal getter
Of signals, with rabbit-ears still in use.
Before random access and cable to the maxes
Made it easy to pull in the higher juice.
So it was no loss -- the Late Late Show dross --
When that little-used bandwidth was sacrificed.
And cocooning lawbreakers can eavesdrop on neighbors
With old TV sets that are cheaply priced.
Joe "Spread spectrum -- tastes like butter but only half the calories" Chew
Heath Ian Hunnicutt
>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
I have a 27" Zenith console model that can be tuned to channels
60-83. Furthermore, there is a channel 63 in our area. Of course,
I dilligently avoid tuning the TV to any stations that might share a
frequency with cellular phone transmissions. :)
Heath
--
On Saturday, April 18, 1992, this .sig became self-aware.
Drew Lawson
>dbus...@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>>(cross posting to alt.folklore.urban) Although the subject of pi==3.0
>>has been beat to death in a.f.u, I don't recall whether or not the
>>subject of the legality of listening to cellular phone conversations
>>has been discussed. That was the original subject of this posting.
>
>It is illegal according to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but
>it is unenforcable. The ECPA is poorly written, it has many areas that are
>ambiguous.
While I don't know about the legality of eaves-dropping on cellular
conversations, I recall a bit from some pseudo-news program a year or
so back indicating that (at that time at least), cellular
communications did not have all the protections that traditional phone
lines did. In particular, law enforcemnet did not have to get a
warrent to listen to your cellular calls. I think this had to do with
some IRS investigation.
--
Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
law...@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
Ron Natalie
> when can I expect the SS to come knocking on my door?
They're not illegal (yet), but listening to phone calls with them is.
-Ron
Carol Osterbrock
>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
My parents' TV goes up to 83. It is about 20 years old. It doesn't
seem to receive cellular phone conversations though, not that I would
try, since it's illegal. Also, there's a channel 60, which is also
an educational station in the bay area, and a channel 67 in Salinas
which is Hispanic.
My question is, have there ever been any UHF stations higher than 70?
If so, what happened to them when the cellular phones got assigned
those frequencies?
-carol "just curious" o
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carol Osterbrock * Such a long, long time to be gone
car...@cse.ucsc.edu * And a short time to be there...
===============================================================================
Johnathan Vail
In my local area are:
Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
Channel 60 (Independent, Merrimack, NH)
Channel 66 (Independent (home shopping), Lawrence*, MA)
Channel 68 (Monitor channel [for now], Boston)
*Or Framingham, I forget
The transmitter for 66 is in Hudson/Marlboro towards Sudbury. It's a
*big* tower. The studio for V66 was in the ugly pink art-deco
building near Speen street and the Mass pike in Natick. I don't know
where the local HSC "studio" but I have seen some Marlboro "community"
programming on it so thats a good guess.
jv
"Don't Ever Antagonize The Horn"
Ron Dippold
>My parents' TV goes up to 83. It is about 20 years old. It doesn't
>seem to receive cellular phone conversations though, not that I would
>try, since it's illegal.
Just a question on why that should matter. It's obviously not fear of
getting caught, nor is it a particularly good law - it's only function
seems to be letting cellular providers claim that conversations are
"secure" without having to provide any form of encryption.
As Will Rogers said, "With congress, every time they make a joke it's
a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke."
--
Girl, bathing on Bikini, eying boy, finds boy eying bikini on bathing girl.
Brian Scearce
channel I've seen was CITY (independent) in Toronto, channel 79
(changed to 57 after the frequency reassignment). Bids for 80, 80, 80?
Brian "CITY-TV... EVERYWHERE" Scearce
---
Brian Scearce b...@sector7g.eng.sun.com
The above does not necessarily represent Sun policy.
It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.
Mark E. Mallett
> Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
Which has the best TV callsign I know of: WLVI.
(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)
-mm-
--
Mark E. Mallett MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett
Internet: m...@mv.MV.COM ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA? Try MV!
mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com
>In article <l9qhf3...@news.bbn.com> le...@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes:
>>In my local area are:
>> Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
>Which has the best TV callsign I know of: WLVI.
>
>(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)
Second best I know of.
#1 is WTEN which is channel (guess) in Albany, NY.
-Mike
Michael A. Covington
Or WXIA, (channel) 11, Atlanta. Formerly WAII.
--
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
+ VOTE NO GEORGIA LOTTERY - we need not imitate mistakes of other states.
Dave Bushong
>car...@cse.ucsc.edu (Carol Osterbrock) writes:
>>My parents' TV goes up to 83. It is about 20 years old. It doesn't
>>seem to receive cellular phone conversations though, not that I would
>>try, since it's illegal.
>Just a question on why that should matter. It's obviously not fear of
>getting caught, nor is it a particularly good law - it's only function
>seems to be letting cellular providers claim that conversations are
>"secure" without having to provide any form of encryption.
>As Will Rogers said, "With congress, every time they make a joke it's
>a law, and every time they make a law it's a joke."
I guess it's sort of like this: draw that ole' famous bell curve, describing
the intelligence of the population, and then draw a vertical line right
smack in the middle of it. Everybody on the right of it, you know who
you are. Everybody on the left, well, the farther left you go, you probably
don't. Anyway, re-draw the line just *1* more person to the right, and you
have a majority.
Poof: congress is elected.
And you can't do a thing about it.
That is, you and I can't.
Dave
--
Dave Bushong, KZ...@K1UGM.MA
Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Internet: dbus...@wang.com
bill dehaan
Date Entered: 08-29-92 15:26
In <mcirvin.714950886@husc8> mci...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
MC>In Boston, WQTV (the Monitor Channel, now dying a slow death in
MC>the midst of the Christian Science church's financial troubles)
MC>is UHF channel 68. That's the highest I've seen.
About five years ago, Toronto's largest independant station, CITY-TV,
changed to station 57 to meet the new regulations. They had been channel
79 for something like 15 years.
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Deus Ex Machina | Internet: bill....@rose.com
Software Consulting and Gator Pit | Eradicate Hunger - Eat the homeless
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
---
SLMR 2.1a I Got real close to seeing Elvis.....But my shovel broke.
RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Jay Denebeim
>
> Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
> beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
> heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
Sorry to differ with you, but I posess a black and white TV with channels
up to the original 83. Also in Kansas City there is, I believe, a UHF
station at around 60 or so.
--
|_o_o|\\
|. o.| || The Jay Denebeim
| . | || Software
| o | || Distillery
| |// Address: UUCP: duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
====== Internet: j...@deepthot.cary.nc.us
BBS:(919)-460-7430 VOICE:(919)-460-6934
Mark E. Mallett
>>(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)
>
>Second best I know of.
>#1 is WTEN which is channel (guess) in Albany, NY.
Sorry, but an impartial poll taken at my house while nobody else was
here (accuracy: 99.8% ) reveals that the use of roman numerals is much
cleverer than spelling the channel number in English. Now if it was a
foreign language, e.g., WDIX, it might be closer -- but still no
winner.
rd...@cstp.umkc.edu
> station at around 60 or so.
KSMO Channel 62. Good station, too! Went from those horrible
midnight Godzirra movies to some prime stuff. They bought some
syndicated network stuff and movies and have really climbed in
the ratings.
I think they showed a snuff film a couple of weeks ago around
3:00 am. Dunno, will have to check. Har har har har har.
Chris Arndt
>In article <l9qcl7...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geo...@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>
>>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
>>Geoff
>
>Well Geoff, your memory just doesn't go back far enough then as what was
>said about UHF channels previously going to channel 83 is absolutely correct.
>
control 13" Sharp TV w/ electronic tuner that goes all the wat to 83, and
it's not more than 5 or 6 years old.
macphil
>
>beyond 60 in the first place. And I know for a fact that I've never
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
>
there are three stations i can receive here in Central Indiana
> 54: WFFT-TV (independent) in Ft. Wayne (ch. 55); WXIN-TV (ch. 59 - Fox)
(Indianapolis); and WIIB (ch. 63) from Bloomington.
Anthony Datri
Spadowski's Playhouse.
Jeffrey C Miller
>In article <l9qhf3...@news.bbn.com> le...@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes:
>>In my local area are:
>> Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
>
>Which has the best TV callsign I know of: WLVI.
>
>(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)
>
--
Jeff Miller, NH6ZW/N8, AFA1HE (ex WD6CQV, AFA8JM, AFA1DO)
AFIT School of Engineering, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
"You gotta expect some losses when you fly the heavies, man" -- Jeff Conn
"No brain, no pain" -- filched from some new movie promo
Scott Cromar
> Can't have been that long ago, either, that it changed. We have a remote
> control 13" Sharp TV w/ electronic tuner that goes all the wat to 83, and
> it's not more than 5 or 6 years old.
I have a 2-year-old Radio Shack portable TV that goes all the way to
83. I haven't noticed any cellular chatter, though. Do you need a
descrambler or something?
--Scott
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
> In article <1992Aug29.0...@engage.pko.dec.com> mor...@ramblr.enet.de
> >In article <1992Aug28....@mv.mv.com>, m...@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett
> >>Which has the best TV callsign I know of: WLVI.
> >>(LVI == 56 in roman numerals.)
> >
> >Second best I know of.
> >#1 is WTEN which is channel (guess) in Albany, NY.
>
> Sorry, but an impartial poll taken at my house while nobody else was
> here (accuracy: 99.8% ) reveals that the use of roman numerals is much
> cleverer than spelling the channel number in English. Now if it was a
> foreign language, e.g., WDIX, it might be closer -- but still no
> winner.
>
What! You mean English isn't a foreign language to New Yorkers!
Robert Smits VE7EMD Ladysmith B.C.
Ph (604) 245-2553 e-mail: e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
PACKET VE7EMD@VE7KIT.#VANC.BC.CAN.NOAM
Michael A. Covington
No. If you did, this whole flap would never have started.
Mark Zenier
: My question is, have there ever been any UHF stations higher than 70?
: If so, what happened to them when the cellular phones got assigned
: those frequencies?
Channels 70 to 83 were assigned to tranlators used to fill in or extend the
reception areas. Some of them were grandfathered and are still operating.
(There's at least one in the 70's running here, Vashon Island for
channel 7 KIRO.) The local land mobile repeaters trash it pretty good,
though. (Not all of the channels got allocated to cellular, there's
a bunch of other stuff there.)
Mark Zenier ma...@ssc.wa.com
Ron Dippold
>I have a 2-year-old Radio Shack portable TV that goes all the way to
>83. I haven't noticed any cellular chatter, though. Do you need a
>descrambler or something?
Nope. However, unless you are near an extremely busy cell, your
chances of picking up anything are slim. There's only about a dozen
to two dozen UHF channels in the right range, and cellular channels go
up to 1023 (although some of them aren't used). You'd need to pick up
a cellular conversation that just happened to be at the frequency
where the TV expected the voice band for the channel you are tuned
into. And due to frequency re-use considerations, a cell near you
would only use a certain set of those channels. Unless you lived,
say, along the highway in LA, your chance of picking up cellular
conversations is low.
However, should you be looking around in that area, and happen to pick
up a call, Presto! You are an instant criminal. (Not to mention the
criminal intent in owning one of those things - you wouldn't own
something that could pick up those channels if you didn't intend to
use it. (Big smiley necessary?)).
--
Death is a nonmaskable interrupt.
Phil Gustafson
>In days of old when viewers were bold
>And cellular wasn't invented,
>The UHF tuners, 'fore FCC pruners,
>Reached 83, as intended.
>
I thought we didn't have to deal with doggerel in this newsgroup.
Thanks for the poem, and thanks for the idea: Phil, get a government job!
Don't worry about actually doing anything useful! Hundreds if not
thousands, etc.
--
|play: ph...@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG; {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil |
|work: (Under Construction) | Phil Gustafson |
| "Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile." |
Christopher Davis
MM> #1 is WTEN which is channel (guess) in Albany, NY.
I still like KTVK-TV in Phoenix...though it shoulda been in Walla Walla.
--Chris "They play a lot of Duran Duran stuff from their Pago Pago tour" Davis
--
Christopher Davis * c...@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
``Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep.
Approach me that you might see.'' -- The Master
David Esan
>In article <1992Aug29.0...@engage.pko.dec.com> mor...@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28....@mv.mv.com>, m...@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes...
>>>In article <l9qhf3...@news.bbn.com> le...@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes:
>>#1 is WTEN which is channel (guess) in Albany, NY.
Or WXXI, channel 21, Rochester, NY.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--> David Esan d...@moscom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Clarke
>cro...@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes:
>>I have a 2-year-old Radio Shack portable TV that goes all the way to
>>83. I haven't noticed any cellular chatter, though. Do you need a
>>descrambler or something?
>
>Nope. However, unless you are near an extremely busy cell, your
>chances of picking up anything are slim. There's only about a dozen
>to two dozen UHF channels in the right range, and cellular channels go
>up to 1023 (although some of them aren't used). You'd need to pick up
>a cellular conversation that just happened to be at the frequency
>where the TV expected the voice band for the channel you are tuned
>into. And due to frequency re-use considerations, a cell near you
>would only use a certain set of those channels. Unless you lived,
>say, along the highway in LA, your chance of picking up cellular
>conversations is low.
Isn't it also true that each "side" of the conversation is broadcast on a
different frequency? So to be a "master" criminal you would need *two*
"Radio Shack portable TV"s!
I remember a TV documentary in the UK about the time cellular phones began
to get popular which addressed the question: "If cell phones are just 2-way
radios with some clever connections to the phone system isn't it very easy
to listen in?". A demonstration was given which showed that the combination
of one frequency for each direction and the fact that both frequencies
change completely (and unpredictably) when the phone (assumed to be in a
car) moves from one "cell" to another made it very difficult to get a
complete conversation. A device the size of a suitcase with an impressive
array of knobs and dials was shown which was alleged to be a unit used by
the police to implement wire taps of cellular phones. A short drive about
London attempting to follow the conversation of a colleague convinced the TV
reporter that the state of the art had some way to go!
Is it illegal to listen to one's neighbor's cordless phone?
BTW, in the UK some *police* bands are in the middle of the standard *FM*
radio spectrum (i.e. between 87 and 108MHz). It's illegal to listen to those
too :-)
Perry "You never hear anything good about yourself, anyway" Clarke
--
Perry Clarke pe...@unify.com (916) 928 6287
Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA I speak only for Me, Inc.
Mark Eckenwiler
>Is it illegal to listen to one's neighbor's cordless phone?
No and maybe, depending on which state you live in. It is NOT a
violation of federal law, as Title III expressly excludes cordless
transmissions from the coverage of the federal anti-interception
statutes.
Here in NY, it's a crime under state law.
--
I am George Bush, miwwionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Bill Gunshannon
|> geo...@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
|> |Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
|>
|> that has an old click-tuner for uhf does that).
How right you are. Before detent-tuners, UHF tuners where nothing more than
a variable capacitor. You could even tune in audio that didn't fall directly
on the audio sub-carrier of the various UHF channels.
|>
|> | And I know for a fact that I've never
|> |heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
|>
|> In my local area are:
|> Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
|> Channel 60 (Independent, Merrimack, NH)
|> Channel 66 (Independent (home shopping), Lawrence*, MA)
|> Channel 68 (Monitor channel [for now], Boston)
|>
Most of the higher channels were and are still used for translators. Low
power transmitters that are used to provide service to remote locations that
have poor reception of the base channel because of little things like mountains.
Locally, we have translators as high as channel 78, with all 5 local stations
running at least 6 translators as well as their base channel.
bill KB3YV
--
Bill Gunshannon | If this statement wasn't here,
bi...@platypus.uofs.edu | This space would be left intentionally blank
bi...@tuatara.uofs.edu | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Ron Dippold
pe...@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:
>Isn't it also true that each "side" of the conversation is broadcast on a
>different frequency? So to be a "master" criminal you would need *two*
>"Radio Shack portable TV"s!
Yes, the forward link (cell to mobile) and the reverse link (mobile to
cell) are at diffrent frequencies. For instance, for Channel 1 it's
825.03 MHz for reverse and 870.03 MHz for forward.
>to listen in?". A demonstration was given which showed that the combination
>of one frequency for each direction and the fact that both frequencies
>change completely (and unpredictably) when the phone (assumed to be in a
>car) moves from one "cell" to another made it very difficult to get a
>complete conversation. A device the size of a suitcase with an impressive
That's handoff. And yes, if your "listener" doesn't interpret the
handoff requests and hand you off with the conversation, to you it
would just disappear. (Sometimes even to the people talking on the
phones, it just disappears! Or they find themselves talking to
someone else or other wierdnesses.) This, I assume, is why people
find cordless phones more interesting to listen to.
>array of knobs and dials was shown which was alleged to be a unit used by
>the police to implement wire taps of cellular phones.
Probably a modified tester such as those made by Marconi, HP, etc.
>Is it illegal to listen to one's neighbor's cordless phone?
Not in the US, under federal law. It may be a law in your state under
state law.
>BTW, in the UK some *police* bands are in the middle of the standard *FM*
>radio spectrum (i.e. between 87 and 108MHz). It's illegal to listen to those
>too :-)
Geez.
BTW, the next generation of digital cellular phones (CDMA types at
least) address this issue and put the protection where it should be -
actually protecting the link instead of "legally protecting" the link.
In addition to the difficulty of decoding _anything_ of the spread
spectrum signal without the CDMA ASICs, each conversation can be
scrambled with a huge privacy code (far greater than 32 bits) which is
never transmitted over the air, and isn't deterministic (it's unique
for each mobile). You have to get every one of the bits right before
you hear any conversation, and it's not anything simple like XORing
the data with the code, the code actually affects the frequency
spreading at its lowest level. Now maybe the NSA could eventually
figure out how to defeat it, but it'd be easier for them to just talk
to the phone company. At the very least it should put the kibosh on
casual listeners for quite a while when the privacy code isn't used,
and everybody but the most well-equipped agencies when it is used.
--
Be prepared... that's the Boy Scout's solemn creed. / Be prepared... to be
clean in word and deed. / Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice,
Unless you get a good percentage of her price... -- Tom Lehrer
2429oc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>Huh? If memory serves, I've never seen a television UHF dial that went
>heard of a UHF station higher than 54 (the local UHF PBS affiliate).
As a survivor of AFROTC summer field training I saw many things. One of
them were the TVs in our rooms. We had to keep the channel selectors on
U-84. Don't ask if they worked because 1. they were never plugged in
and 2. we never had time to sit down and watch.
Bill
Eber Lambert
>pe...@Unify.Com (Perry Clarke) writes:
>>Isn't it also true that each "side" of the conversation is broadcast on a
>>different frequency? So to be a "master" criminal you would need *two*
>>"Radio Shack portable TV"s!
>Yes, the forward link (cell to mobile) and the reverse link (mobile to
>cell) are at diffrent frequencies. For instance, for Channel 1 it's
>825.03 MHz for reverse and 870.03 MHz for forward.
Actually there is not a lot of isolation between transmit and receive audio.
So in an eavesdrop mode you CAN hear both halves of the conversation although
one half will likely be louder than the other.
The cellular band currently is 824 to 894 Mhz (mobile Transmit 824-849;
mobile receive 869-894). This falls on UHF channels 72 to 83 (actually
72-77 for mobile TX, 80-83 for mobile RX).
But theres problems: Some TVs (later ones) need a Picture carrier to
demodulate sound (parallel demod to keep residual PM on the Pix carrier
out of the sound channel (buzz)). Also AFC override disappeared with
synthesized (push button) tuners. Many sets mute audio if no Pix carrier
is found. So criminals will need the older manual tuners and a quick wrist
to scan the 833 somewhat randomly assigned available phone channels. Even
manual tuners dont always give you full fine tuning range (channel to
channel) so you may be limited to a handful of frequecies around each
aural carrier frequency for each of the 10 TV channels listed above. Also
as pointed out, your caller is probably in a car and the call will be
handed off to another cell/frequency before the intercepted call gets
interesting and you'll have no idea where (spectrally speaking) it went.
The probability of eavesdropping with a TV set is pretty low.
You'd spend most of your time listening
to the Gaussian symphony on radio station KTB (voice of the heavens).
But its possible. This is yet one more shortcoming of the FM system that
will be obliterated by Digital Cellular (ahem! toot! toot!). Even Big
Brothers wiretappers are gonna have a REAL TOUGH time.
eel
Larry Clawson
There are no federal laws against listening to 'cordless' phones. Cordless
meaning the type in the home that has a base and the phone must be within
so many feet of that base.
However, there are federal laws against listening to cellular phones even
though it is easier to listen to them. The law was passed so that the
cellular phone companies could claim the transmission is 'protected'.
The transmissions are *NOT* secure by any means. One should NEVER discuss
anything that you would not discuss in a loud voice in a room full of
strangers (i.e. business deals,legal or not, stock deals, company secrets,
etc).
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Man will never be truely free until | All opinions are my own and
the last politician is strangled to death | not those of my employer even
with the entrails of the last bureaucrat." | though I'm right.
Apologies to Voltaire | Honeywell's opinions aren't
| mine either.
larry clawson ( lcla...@ips.iacd.honeywell.com )
Honeywell IAC
Phoenix, AZ (602) 436-4831
Leslie Basel
>In <g9y...@Unify.Com>, pe...@Unify.Com sez:
>>Is it illegal to listen to one's neighbor's cordless phone?
>
>No and maybe, depending on which state you live in. It is NOT a
>violation of federal law, as Title III expressly excludes cordless
>transmissions from the coverage of the federal anti-interception
>statutes.
>
>Here in NY, it's a crime under state law.
>
When those phones first hit town (here in Seattle and elsewhere, I am sure)
there were a limited number of channels available; if you wanted to eavesdrop
you just drove around till you heard a conversation on your handset.
Well if you got a dial tone -- you could call anywhere in the world for free.
sigh
John Wells
Fer watts it worth.....
[Last modified 4-May-92]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.705 49.67 old cordless phone (Ch 1)
1.735 49.845 old cordless phone (Ch 2)
1.765 49.86 old cordless phone (Ch 3)
1.795 49.77 old cordless phone (Ch 4)
1.825 49.875 old cordless phone (Ch 5)
46.61 49.67 FCC Cordless phone Ch 1
46.63 49.845 FCC Cordless phone Ch 2
46.67 49.86 FCC Cordless phone Ch 3
46.71 49.77 FCC Cordless phone Ch 4
46.73 49.875 FCC Cordless phone Ch 5
46.77 49.83 FCC Cordless phone Ch 6
46.83 49.89 FCC Cordless phone Ch 7
46.87 49.93 FCC Cordless phone Ch 8
46.93 49.99 FCC Cordless phone Ch 9
46.97 49.97 FCC Cordless phone Ch 10
470.0 890.0 UHF TV (Ch14 to Ch83)
475.75 471.25 TV Ch 14
481.75 477.25 TV Ch 15
{etc}
613.75 609.25 TV Ch 37 (reserved)
608.0 614.0 radio astronomy
619.75 615.25 TV Ch 38
721.75 717.25 TV Ch 55
725.0 780.0 Ly band
727.75 723.25 TV Ch 56
733.75 729.25 TV Ch 57
775.75 771.25 TV Ch 64
780.0 900.0 Lt band
781.75 777.25 TV Ch 65
805.75 801.25 TV Ch 69
806.0 810.0 Business
810.0 816.0 Public Safety (input)
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMNI(tm) Cellular Phone Band A (Data Channel is usually Channel 1)
There are 21 Cells, each has at most 16 Channels
Cell # 1
--------------------------------------------------
Channel 1 (333) Tx 879.990 Rx 834.990
Channel 2 (312) Tx 879.360 Rx 834.360
Channel 3 (291) Tx 878.730 Rx 833.730
{etc}
Channel 14 (627) Tx 888.810 Rx 843.810
Channel 15 (648) Tx 889.440 Rx 844.440
----------------------------------------------------------------
811.75 807.25 TV Ch 70 (old)
816.0 821.0 Business Band (input)
817.75 813.25 TV Ch 71 (old)
821.0 825.0 Land Mobile Satellite (uplink)
823.75 819.25 TV Ch 72 (old)
825.0 835.0 Cellular phone (Mobile Input)
825.03 834.99 band A Cells every 30 Khz
829.75 825.25 TV Ch 73 (old)
835.0 845.0 Cellular phone (Mobile Input)
835.65 844.98 band B Cells every 30 Khz
835.75 831.25 TV Ch 74 (old)
841.75 837.25 TV Ch 75 (old)
845.0 850.0 Cellular phone (expansion)
847.75 843.25 TV Ch 76 (old)
849. 851, Airphone plane SSB (Ch spacing 6 Khz)
851.0 855.0 Business (Output)
853.75 849.25 TV Ch 77 (old)
855.0 861.0 Public Safety (Output)
859.75 855.25 TV Ch 78 (old)
861.0 866.0 Business (Output)
865.75 861.25 TV Ch 79 (old)
866.0 870.0 Land Mobile Satellite (downlink)
870.0 880.0 Cellular phone (Base Output)
870.03 879.99 band A Cells every 30 Khz
871.75 867.25 TV Ch 80 (old)
877.75 873.25 TV Ch 81 (old)
880.0 890.0 Cellular phone (Base Output)
880.02 889.99 band B Cells every 30 Khz
883.75 879.25 TV Ch 82 (old)
883.77 838.77 band B Cell 21 Ch 6 459
889.75 885.25 TV Ch 83 (old)
890.0 895.0 Cellular phone (expansion)
894. 896. Airphone base SSB (Ch spacing 6 Khz)
896.0 902.0 Land Mobile (Input)
900.0 950.0 Ls band
**************************************************************************
Hope that helps.... Just the FAX!
John in the Fort
Bruce Thompson 272-1800(w) or 229-3370(h)
>In article <35...@atlas.tegra.COM> va...@tegra.COM (Johnathan Vail) writes:
>
>>Reasonable people may argue this way but still the law makes it
>>illegal. Bad spelling aside you are either wrong or missing some
>>facts of the case. Are you sure it was cellular?
>
>Posative. Of course this was several years ago so it _could_ have been
>before the law was passed... But at that time I remember what a big fuss
>was made over the fact.
>
>L8r G8r
> Keith
Under Canadian Telecommunications law, it is legal to listen in on
_any_ frequency provided that copyrights are not infringed. I.e. you
are permitted only to use the information for your own private,
personal use. This applies to cellular, satellite, scrambled cable
channels, etc. So long as you do not extract the signals from a
transmission medium that has not been either provided to you (like
cable), or from the _public_ airwaves, you are free to listen to
whatever you want.
Various cable companies attempted to prosecute people for
de-scrambling pay-tv channels. The cases were thrown out due to the
fact that the cable companies were providing the signals to the
subscribers, so the subscribers were free to do with them what they
please (within the bounds set for normal television, i.e. no
re-transmission or re-broadcast without express permission).
Satellite dishes went through the same deal, and again the courts
ruled essentially that broadcast signals were freely available for
reception. A cellular telephone is nothing more than a fancy
_broadcast_ radio. Caveat Emptor. (sp?)
Cheers,
Bruce.
fre...@forsan.enet.dec.com
In the UK the Police moved off band 2 (or is it band 3) ie 88 - 108 Mhz some
years ago. They now ocupy 144 Mhz, 450 Mhz and like frequencies.
Re Cellnet . Certainly in the UK you can hear both sides of the conversation 80%
of the time. This is due to crossover and allows the users to hear themselves.
I believe the other freuency of UK cellphones is around 1 Mhz. This technique
being known as full duplex.
Simon - G6ZTZ
Robert Reay
>In article <1992Aug28....@mv.mv.com> m...@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett) writes:
>>In article <l9qhf3...@news.bbn.com> le...@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes:
>>> Channel 56 (Independent, Boston)
>>Which has the best TV callsign I know of: WLVI.
-Rob
A.B. van Woerkom
>Under Canadian Telecommunications law, it is legal to listen in on
>_any_ frequency provided that copyrights are not infringed. I.e. you
>are permitted only to use the information for your own private,
>personal use. This applies to cellular, satellite, scrambled cable
>channels, etc. So long as you do not extract the signals from a
>transmission medium that has not been either provided to you (like
>cable), or from the _public_ airwaves, you are free to listen to
>whatever you want.
>Various cable companies attempted to prosecute people for
>de-scrambling pay-tv channels. The cases were thrown out due to the
>fact that the cable companies were providing the signals to the
>subscribers, so the subscribers were free to do with them what they
>please (within the bounds set for normal television, i.e. no
>re-transmission or re-broadcast without express permission).
>Satellite dishes went through the same deal, and again the courts
>ruled essentially that broadcast signals were freely available for
>reception. A cellular telephone is nothing more than a fancy
>_broadcast_ radio. Caveat Emptor. (sp?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is exactly what PTT Telecom, the Dutch telecom company, does.
In the Netherlands the Telecommunication Laws are the same as the
Canadian ones as described above. When you subscribe to the car
telephone network somewhere in the contract is stated that everyone
can overhear conversations made in car phones and that the normal
telephone secret laws don't apply.
The good news for eaves-droppers is that nearly everyone forgets
about the warning soon ...
The bad news is that 99.9 % of the car phone conversations is
rather dull ( "Good evening, dear. I'm now in the traffic jam
at Van Brienenoord bridge. What are we having for diner?")
> Cheers,
> Bruce.
Adri.
--
A.B. van Woerkom, ad...@dutncp8.tn.tudelft.nl
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Applied Physics,
Vakgroep Fysische Informatica, section Computational Physics,
Lorentzweg 1, 2628 CJ DELFT, The Netherlands
________________________________________________________________________
"Unfortunately, the current generation of mail programs do not have checkers
to see if the sender knows what he is talking about" (A.S. Tanenbaum)